Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1183/2015

Kamaldeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhola Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Bhushan Garg

10 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 1183                                                                                               

                                                                   Instituted on:  01.10.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    10.05.2016

 

Kamaldeep son of sh. Jagjiwan Kumar resident of H.No.963, Narindera Colony Opposite Sardaran Wala Petrol Pump, Malerkotla District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.Bhola Telecom, Opposite Sardaran Wala Petrol Pump, Malerkotla District Sangrur through its owner.

 

2.TVS Electronics Limited, Cabin No.111, Plot No.260A, First Floor, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through its proprietor ( authorized service centre of HTC).

 

3.  HTC India Private Limited ( Corporate Office) G-4, Bptp Park Avenue Gurgaon Sector 30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.

 

4. MPS Telecom Private Limited, Defendant -55,First & Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phage-I, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director. a  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT       :    Shri Bhushan Garg  Advocate                           

 

FOR  THE  OPP. PARTIES       :     Exparte.

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Kamaldeep complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone HTC Desire 616 Dual SIM  from OP No.1 for Rs.15200/- vide bill number 708 under one year warranty. From the very beginning, the said mobile set started giving problems of auto power on/off, not fully charging and hanging. Sometimes it used to left the network service. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and on his advice he used to reset the default setting after some days but the problem persisted.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP No.2 for removing  the problem  of i.e. auto power off/on, charging and network service failure. The mobile set in question was handed over by Kulwinder Singh, colleague of complainant to OP No.2 who told to  Mr. Kulwinder singh that there is defect in the mother board of the set and all the said problems are  due  fault in mother board and OP No.2 asked to pay him Rs.6000/-  as cost of the mother board. As mobile set was  under warranty period so Kulwinder singh asked to repair the same free of cost but OP No.2 refused to repair  the same . The OP no.2 also falsely said  that the water has entered into the mobile set in question.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed either to replace the mobile phone with new one of same model or to refund  the amount of Rs.15200/-  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1,3 and4 did not appear and as such OPs no.1,3 and 4 were proceeded exparte on 26.04.2016.

3.             Initially, Mr. Naveen Kumar A/A has appeared for OP No.2 and filed reply wherein it has been stated  that according to warranty policy the device is not in warranty  because customer has purchased the unit on 02.10.2014. The warranty is applicable for  one year from the date of purchase   and also there is liquid damage found in the device. OPs  contacted  the complainant on 5.11.2015 to resolve the issue however the complainant informed the OPs that he wants free of cost repair. OPs then advised the service centre to contact the complainant and request him to submit the device for repair on chargeable basis as service centre has found liquid damage in  the device.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.  On 26.04.2016 when the case was fixed for evidence of the OP no.2, none appeared for the OP No.2 and as such OP No.2 was also proceeded exparte.

4.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased  a mobile phone of HTC Desire 616 Dual SIM  from OP No.1  on 02.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.15200/- which is evident from  bill number 708 dated 02.10.2014 which is Ex.C-6 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of the purchase of the mobile set, it started giving problems of auto power on/off, not fully charging and hanging for which the complainant approached the OPs but the problem could not be solved and ultimately the OP No.2 asked the complainant  to pay him Rs.6000/- on account cost of the mother board although the mobile set is in warranty period. The OP No.2 in its reply has stated that warranty policy the device is not in warranty because the complainant purchased the unit on 02.10.2014  and warranty is applicable for one year from the date of purchase and also there  is liquid damage found in the device but the OP No.2 has not produced any cogent evidence/ document which proves its version rather it chosen to remain exparte after filing of the reply only. To prove his version, the complainant has produced report of an expert namely Kamalpreet Singh proprietor of Kamal Communication Sangrur along with  his affidavit Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 respectively wherein it has been stated  that after through checking  of the mobile phone, he did not find any signs of water entering into the mobile phone in question and there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and due to that reason mobile set was giving problems which are not removable with repairs.  The complainant has also produced on record Ex.C-7  which is service report dated 11.08.2015 which shows that the complainant has approached the OPs within warranty period but defects in his mobile set could not be removed. The Ops have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to replace  the mobile set with new one of the same model and cost  or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.15200/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                May 10, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

BBS/-