DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.168 of 15-05-2015

Decided on 09-10-2015

Ram Dass aged about 27 years S/o Devi Lal R/o Near School, VPO Modi Khera, District Fazilka

........Complainant

Versus

1.Intex, D-18/2, Okla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director/Director.

2.Shivaji Telecom, Court Road, Ranjit Press Wali Gali, Near Kesri Cloth House, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager/M.D/Partner/Incharge.

3.Hind Tel Communication, Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager/M.D/Partner Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sarabjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Ram Dass (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Intex and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is manufacturer of Intex mobile handset and opposite party No.2 is the dealer/distributor of opposite party No.1 and sells the Intex mobile handsets and opposite party No.3 is the service centre. The complainant has purchased one Intex Platinum 201 Black mobile handset for Rs.1400/- vide receipt/bill No.335 from opposite party No.2 on 17.2.2014 with sufficient warranty.

3. It is alleged that after 4 months from the date of purchase of mobile handset, it stopped working and there is defect in it i.e. display dead problem. The complainant made complaints to opposite party No.2, it sent him to opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 checked the mobile handset and kept the same in its custody and asked the complainant to come after a few days.

4. It is further alleged that after sometime, the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant, but the same problem re-occurred. The complainant many times approached opposite party No.3 for the same problem. On 21.11.2014, the complainant again approached opposite party No.3, it after checking kept the mobile handset with it and issued him job sheet dated 21.11.2014 and asked him to come after sometime. The complainant many times approached the shop of opposite party No.3, but the mobile handset is not repaired till date.

5. It is also alleged that in the last week of month of April, 2015, the complainant again approached opposite party No.3, it disclosed that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, which is not curable. Now, opposite parties have declined either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund its price.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.1400/- i.e. price of mobile handset in addition to litigation expenses.

6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were ordered against opposite parties.

7. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 12.8.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the file carefully.

9. The complainant has reiterated his version by way of sworn affidavit. Copy of bill dated 17.2.2014 proves that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question. Service Job Sheet, (Ex.C3) shows that the mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.3 on 21.11.2014 with the fault reported by customer 'Display Dead'. The averment of the complainant is that his mobile handset has not been repaired by opposite party No.3. This evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. Of-course, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset in question or refund of its price, but the mobile handset was purchased by him on 17.2.2014 and is with opposite party No.3 since 21.11.2014, which shows that he has already used his mobile handset for more than 8 months. In such circumstances, the complainant is not held entitled for replacement of the mobile handset in question or refund of its price.

10. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.500/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to repair the mobile handset in question and handover the same to the complainant after its repair.

11. The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be done jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1 and 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

09-10-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member