Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/743/2015

Shivani Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Harjot Singh Bedi Adv & Deepankur Sharma Adv.

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	743/2015
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	09/03/2016

 

                                               

                                                        

Shivani Sharma wife of Sh.Amit Sharma r/o H.No.747, Sector 40-A,Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Asus Service Centre, SCO No.274, 2^nd Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Chief Executive.

 

2.      Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., 4-C, Gundecha Onclave, Kherani Road, Near Sakinaka Police Chowki, Sakinaka, Andheri-E, Mumbai-400072 through its Managing Director.

 

3.      S.K.Telecom, D-31, Opp. Metro Pillar No.34, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Deepankur Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile handset make Asus, Model 2 Ch.Zen from OP No.3 vide Invoice dated 24.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Annexure C-1), having warranty of one year.  It has been averred that on 21.07.2015 all of sudden, there was no display on the screen of the phone. She approached the service center (OP No.1) for its repairs vide job sheet dated 22.07.2015  (Annexure C-2) who after checking told that due to liquid on charge sub board, there was damage of charging sub board and the same was to be replaced on cost of Rs.1500/-.  According to the complainant, she was shocked to know about the cause of the problem in phone as she never even touched the handset with wet hands. Rather she handled the mobile handset with great care and caution and so she refused to pay Rs.1500/- and preferred to get her handset back from the service center on the same day. 

                   Having aggrieved by the illegal action of the OP, she got the same examined from another renowned Dealer/Mobile Engineer at Sector 41,Chandigarh who after inspection gave a report  (Annexure C-3) that the mother board of the phone set was completely damaged and as such the same needs to be replaced. However, the same was not available in the market and so he advised her to get the same replaced from OP No.1. Subsequently, she took up the issue with the OPs for the replacement/refund of the phone set, however, she was told that the mother board of the mobile phone did not come under warranty.  Finding no other alternative, she purchased a new mobile handset in the month of August, 2015.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance either in person or through any authorized representative and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.02.2016.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In her exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice dated 24.03.2015 vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question for Rs.10,000/- from OP No.3. Annexure C-2 is the job sheet dated 22.7.2015 vide which the complainant approached OP No.1 for the repairs of the mobile handset.  Annexure C-3 is the report given by M/s Askash Communication, Shop No.3, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh  to the effect that he checked the mobile phone in question and found that the mother board of the phone was defective and not working, therefore, its replacement was required and the same was not available in the market.  The mother board, which is the major part of the mobile phone in question, became defective within three months from the date of its purchase and as such non-replacing/repairing of the mobile phone in question despite the fact that the same is suffering from major problem amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5.           Pertinently, the Opposite Parties chose not to appear before this Forum.  Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the Opposite Parties, the version of the complainant, supported by her duly sworn affidavit, must prevail.  Failure on the part of the opposite parties to honour their commitments, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be allowed. 
6.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To replace the defective mobile phone of the complainant with a brand new of the same make/model and fresh warranty within a period of 45 days failing which they will refund the invoice price of the mobile set in question.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09/03/2016                                                                

Sd/-

  (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER