Haryana

Ambala

CC/187/2014

VIJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BASE 39 - Opp.Party(s)

R.K KASHYAP

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 187 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         : 23.07.2014

                                                          Date of decision   : 12.09.2017

          Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Bal Kishan, R/o H.No.F-5, Dayal Baghg, Ambala        Cantt.   

……. Complainant.

1. Base 39 Behind S.D. Girls Hostel, Gian Marg, Ambala Cantt through its proprietor/Partner.
2. Nanak Telecom, Service Centre of HTC Mobile, 74-75, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.
3. The Manger, through Authorized Singnator, HTC Mobile bay shop No.411, Sector-32-D, Chandigarh.
4. M/s HTC India (P) Limited (DOPOD) G-4, BPTP, Part Centre, Near NH-8, Sector-30, Gurgaon-122002.

                                                               ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER       

Present:       Sh. R.K. Kashyap, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Mittal, counsel for OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2, 3 and 4 already exparte.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased mobile phone Model No. HTC-Desire X, dual Sim T329W from OP No.1 vide bill NO.17317 dated 24.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.17,499/- with the two years extended warranty but the mobile phone started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. hang-up, mike problem and touch problem. Complainant further submitted that the mobile phone again occurred the same problems after repairing by OP no. 2 and after repeated assurance by OPs No.1 and 2, the mobile does not work properly and harassed the complainant in one way or other way. In fact there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and as approaching to OP No.1 and 2 for replacement of the mobile set with new one, the OPs No.1 and 2 refused clearly to do the same. Complainant further submitted that he is a Doctorate of Philosophy and having prestigious post at District level and Head quarter Level of Economic & Statistical Analysis Govt. of Haryana and working as Assistant Research Officer and many of the times, he suffered mental harassment and defamation due to not working of his phone and to buy another mobile phone for sum of Rs.19,500/-.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and resisted the present complaint, however, OPs No.2, 3 and 4 did not appear before the Court and OPs No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte v.o.d 15.06.2017 and Op No.4 is proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 07.08.2017.

                   OP No.1 in his written statement submitted that the complainant had purchased mobile in question from OP No.1 but there is no question of giving any such assurance on part of OP No.1 arise at all as a new mobile set is already covered with the terms and condition of warranty and guarantee and OP No.1 being the dealer only under those terms and condition of warranty can only get the repairable defect removed without any cost through authorized service centre. However there is manufacturing defect in any mobile hand set then only the manufacture company can replace the same if it is covered in warranty period. For any manufacturing defect, OP No.1 being a dealer is not liable at all. It is pertinent to mention here that the set being sold by OP NO.1 to complainant has no defect at all and complainant has stated wrong facts to you resulting in issuance of above referred complaint. So, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissed of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-7 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 did not lead any evidence, however made a statement that his written statement be read as his evidence.

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

5.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased mobile phone Model No. HTC-Desire X, dual Sim T329W from OP No.1 vide bill No.17317 dated 24.09.2013 for a sum of Rs.17,499/- (Annexure C-5) with the two years extended warranty but the mobile phone started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. hang-up, mike problem and touch problem. Perusal of the Job sheets dated 23.06.2014 and 01.07.2014 and HTC device ticket No.14 NA150004632 April 2014 (Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3) reveal that the mobile set occurred problems like touch panel function, bnormally-touch Auto working, hang problem and need to be sent to concern authority and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems i.e. hang-up, mike problem and touch problem within its warranty period inspite of various visits by complainant. In order to strengthen his case, counsel for complainant has placed on record Limited warranty statement at the time of argument which is as under:

                   “Unless otherwise agreed by the customer, this limited warranty shall last for twelve (12) months from the date of original purchase for mobile device, and twelve (12) months for accessories (Whether included in the mobile device sales package or sold separately) other than the media on which any software is provided, CD-ROM, Memory car (warranty period)”.

                    It is proved from Limited warranty statement that the mobile in question has become defected within warranty period i.e. 12 months from the date of purchased and same has been purchased 24.09.2013 and the present complaint has been filed on 23.07.2017 within warranty period. The complainant filed an affidavit and categorically mentioned that deponent is a Doctorate of Philosophy and having prestigious post at District level and Head quarter Level of Economic & Statistical Analysis Govt. of Haryana and working as Assistant Research Officer and same has not been rebutted. In this era, the mobile phone is necessary to get in touch with family, society and friends and it plays an important role because without it we cannot survive. Since, the complainant has been deprived of using the phone which he had purchased from OP No.1 which went out of order within a short period after its purchased and the service centre also failed to rectify the defect in the same. Therefore, the complainant had to buy another mobile phone for sum of Rs.19,500/- (Annexure  C-4) under compelling circumstances.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.17499/- costs of mobile phone as per Annexure C-5 alongwith interest @ 9% a.m. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :12.09.2016                                              Sd/-

                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                               Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

             (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member