Haryana

Sonipat

5/2014

ANJALI TYAGI W/O NEERAJ TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. INTEX SERVICE CENTRE,2. DEEP CUMMUNICATION,3. INTEX TECHNOLOGHY - Opp.Party(s)

S.L. TYAGI

01 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.05 of 2014

                                Instituted on:02.01.2014                                             Date of order:28.05.2015

 

Anjali Tyagi wife of Neeraj Tyagi, resident of H.No.33, Sector 15, Sonepat.

 

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

1.M/s Intex Service Centre, Building no.73/11 tenant of Ch. Kanwal Singh Advocate, Bawa Tarana road, near Petrol Pump, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Intex Care Service Centre Shop no.3, Tuplip Mall Complex near Gandhi Chowk, Baba Tarana road near City Petrol Pump, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.Intex Technologies India Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-20, through its Director.

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. S.L. Tyagi Advocate for complainant.

          Respondent no.1 and 3 ex-parte on 11.2.2014.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte on 27.04.2015.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she purchased one Intex i-Buddy tablet with keyboard from respondent no.1 on 26.1.2013 . The said tablet is manufactured by respondent no.3.  The said tablet became defective in the month of 5/2013 as there was display problem in the same.  The complainant approached the respondent no.2 who kept the said tablet and issued a job sheet dated 23.5.2013.  Since 23.5.2013 the said tablet is lying deposited with the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 orally told that there is manufacturing defect in the said tablet which cannot be repaired and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notice to respondent no.1 and 3 were issued through registered post. But when none appeared on their behalf, they were

proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.2.2014.

          With effect from 30.3.2015 to 8.4.2015 respondent no.2 appeared in person and when the case was adjourned form 8.4.2015 to 27.4.2015, none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 and due to this, respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte on the said date.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondent no.2 has orally told that there is manufacturing defect in the tablet which cannot be repaired.  When the complainant asked the respondents to replace the same with new one, the respondents refused to do so. He further submitted that since 23.5.2013, the tab in question is lying with the respondent no.2.  The present complaint was filed on 2.1.2014 and till now, the respondents never made any efforts to reconcile the matter in any manner and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte.  Opportunities were afforded to them to defend the case by filing reply and evidence alongwith their supporting documents, if any.  But instead of doing so, they have chosen to proceed against ex-parte.  But it is made clear to them that by getting themselves ex-parte, they cannot escape from their legal liabilities.  Since there is nothing from the side of the respondents, we have no other option except to accept the pleadings of the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund  Rs.5999/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. However, the complainant is directed to return the accessories of the tab in question to the respondents.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte. 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the ld. Counsel for the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:28.05.2015