Haryana

Karnal

CC/185/2018

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies India Private - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 185 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.27.07.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 06.11.2019

 

Vinod Kumar son of Shri Devi Singh resident of village Peer Badoli, Tehsil Ghauranda, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Intex Technology India Ltd. through Tara Tele and Mobile shop no.35, Mela Ram School Market, near Sachdeva Hospital, Karnal through authorized signatory/proprietor Mobile no.92544-55550.

2. S.R. & Sons of shop situated shop no.9, opposite Devi Mandir Railway Road, Ghauranda through proprietor/partner mobile no.92159-07148.

3. Intex Technology India Pvt. Ltd. A 61/1, Okhla Industrial Area-11 New Delhi-11002 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh…….President.

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member  

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 given up.

                           Opposite party no.3 exparte

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has purchased a Mobile set of Intex Company bearing IMEI no.911528050022183 from OP no.2, vide bill no.3661 dated 2.8.2017 with the warranty of one year. The said mobile set has become defective on 3.6.2018. The complainant approached the OP no.1( the authorized service centre of the company) on 4.6.2018 for repair of the said mobile. OP no.1 kept the mobile and demanded one week time for repairing of the same. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP no.1 so many times for taking his mobile and lastly on 17.7.2018 OP no.1 returned the mobile set to the complainant without any repair and misbehaved with him. Then complainant approached OP no.2 for the repair of the mobile set but OP no.2 also did not give any satisfactory reply. The mobile set in question was within warranty period but OPs did not repair the same. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the warranty of the unit is provided by manufacturer of the unit and the OP no.1 is only service provider of the Intex Technology India. It is further stated that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the OP no.1 as a party in the present complaint as the same was only service provider of company till August, 2018. Now the OP no.1 has left the contract of services with Intext Technology India. It is further stated that on 4.6.2018 the complainant visited the office of OP and reported Handset Dead problem in his unit. The OP no.1 as per contract of the company and as per conditions of warranty, checked the unit and it was found that the unit is Liquid Damage i.e. Damage due to contract with any type of liquid and as the product is an electronic piece, the circuit of unit was shot due to liquid damage and same told to complainant that the unit is out of warranty and the repair shall be on chargeable basis, but the complainant became adamant not to pay charges of repair and refused to get his unit repaired and the unit was returned to complainant with remarks of PWR (i.e. return without repair). There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party, vide his statement dated 8.3.2019.

4.             OP no.3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.07.2019.

5              Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 16.09.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1, vide his statement dated 6.11.2019 stated that his written statement be read as his evidence.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel of OP no.2 and also gone through the evidence produced by the parties on the file.

8.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Mobile set of Intex Company from OP no.2, vide bill no.3661 dated 2.8.2017 with the warranty of one year. The said mobile set has become defective on 3.6.2018. The complainant approached the OP no.1 on 4.6.2018 for repair of the said mobile. OP no.1 kept the mobile and demanded one week time for repairing of the same. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP no.1 so many times for taking his mobile and lastly on 17.7.2018 OP no.1 returned the mobile set to the complainant without any repair and misbehaved with him.

9.             OP no.1 in his written statement submitted that the mobile set became defective due to liquid damage and same was told to complainant that the unit is out of warranty and the repair shall be on chargeable basis, but the complainant became adamant not to pay charges of repair and refused to get his unit repaired and the unit was returned to complainant with remarks of RWR (i.e. return without repair).

10.            It is not disputed that complainant has purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.2. It is also not disputed that the mobile set in question was become defective within warranty period. Complainant to prove his allegations placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.  The OP alleged that the unit in question was damage due to liquid damage. To prove his stand, OP no.1 has not placed on record any document or proof in this regard. OP no.3 also did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is the duty of the OPs to repair or replace the unit in question, which was within warranty period but OPs failed to do so. Hence, it is well proved that the OPs 1 and 3 are deficient in their services.

11.            As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 3 to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value, same make and model which was purchased by the complainant. However, it is hereby made clear that if the mobile set of the same make and model is not available with the OPs no.1 and 3, then the OPs no.1 and 3will return the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.4500/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs no.1 and 3 to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:06.11.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member