BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR
Consumer Complaint no. 256 of 14
Date of Institution : 05.06.2014
Date of Decision : 06.02.2015
Ashish son of Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta aged 22 years, resident of House No.1073, Sector 9 & 11, Hisar.
..Complainant
Versus
- Fancy Stationers the Gift & Mobile gallery through its proprietor, Shop No.CG 28-29, Pushpa Shopping Complex, Hisar.
- Shri Balaji Communication, Shop No.111, Parijat complex, First Floor, Hisar through its authorized person.
- HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (Dopod) G4, BPTP Park, Centre Sector-30, Near National Highway-8, Gurgaon(Haryana) 122001 through its authorized person.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Deepak Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
None for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, proprietor of opposite parties No.2 &3.
ORDER
On 12.11.2013, complainant Ashish purchased mobile hand set of HTC –Desire 600C bearing IMEI No.357211050189937 for Rs.28,400/-(Ex.C-1) from Fancy Stationer i.e. from opposite party No.1 with warranty of one year. HTC India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.3 is the manufacturing Company thereof Shri Balaji Communication i.e. opposite party No.2 is the service centre of the Company. That just after its purchase, complainant found many problems with it, like speaker/ringer voice not clear and hanging problem etc. He visited opposite party No.1 and apprised him for his complaints. That at the instance of the opposite party no.1, complainant went to the service centre of the company who kept the Mobile hand set with it and required him to come after one week to get it back after removal of the defects. That after about one week he collected the mobile hand set, but after a few days thereafter, the mobile hand set again started giving same problems. Therefore, now in the month of February,2014, he had to again go to the service centre. This time mobile hand set was kept for 5-6 days and while returning he was assured that it will work satisfactorily. However, same defects were found and so he again went to service centre. After a few days, it was return to him, with fresh assurance that now it will work properly. But still it was not working properly. Therefore on 16.5.2014, he had once again go to service centre. This time mobile hand set was not returned to him repaired or unrepaired which is still lying with the service centre. Alleging it, as deficiency of service, complainant has brought this complaint, on 5.6.2014, for a direction to the opposite parties, either for replacement of the mobile hand set or to refund its price of Rs.28,400/- to him with up to date interest, besides damages for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 was duly proceeded ex-parte. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3, put their appearance through Sh.Sanjiv Kumar proprietor, but opposite parties no. 2 & 3 opted not to file any reply.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 copy of sale invoice dated 12.11.2013; Ex.C-2 copy of job sheet dated 16.5.2014 and Ex.CW1/A his own supporting affidavit.
4. There is no reason to disbelieve or to dis-credit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his own supporting affidavit, but also from aforesaid documentary evidence. It is note worthy that job sheet Ex.C-2, records the problems of speaker/ringer, voice not clear and still hanging problem. Word “still” therein is important, which points towards the correctness of the case of the complainant regarding his previous repeated different complaints. It is very clear that the mobile hand set was purchased on 12.11.2013, and during the period upto 16.5.2014 i.e. of about 26 months, the complainant had to go to the service centre with different problems time and again. Ultimately the mobile hand set was not returned to him repaired or unrepaired. When the complainant had purchased costly mobile hand set, naturally he was entitled for hustle free service but he did not receive it, rather on the other hand, he has been harassed a lot.
5. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant within a period of 15 days from today. Otherwise to refund its price of Rs.28,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 5.6.2014 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/-, for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-, against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.
6. However, primary responsibility to comply the order shall be of opposite party No.3 being the manufacturing company. In case compliance of the order is made by opposite party No.1or by opposite party No.2 as the case may be, then the complying party shall be duly indemnified by opposite party No. 3, with interest @ 10% per annum.
Announced. President,
06.02.2015 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hisar.
Member/06.02.2015
