| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 445 of 2015 Date of Institution: 17.07.2015 Date of Decision: 22.04.2016 Sukhdev Singh (aged about 56 years) son of S.Balbir Singh, Caste Jatt, resident of village: Jandoke, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran. Complainant Versus - Hi-Tech Pones 29, first Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Officer Incharage/ Partner.
- S.T.C. 2nd Floor Ganpati Tower (Service Centre), through its Officer Incharge.
- HTC India Private Limited, G-4, BPTP Park Centre Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon Haryana through its M.D/ Officer Incharge (Manufacturing Company).
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Vikram Puri, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1: Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Inderjit Lakra, Advocate Coram Sh.S.S.Panesar, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.S.S. Panesar, President. - Sh.Sukhdev Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one new Mobile Set of HTC Desire, Model No.1 Desire 616 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 1755 dated 30.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.17500/- and the complainant having hired the service from Opposite Party No.1 against valid consideration and as such, he is consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and is competent to file the present complaint. It is further stated that Opposite Party No.1 got the said Mobile Set insured from Royal Green Services and the complainant paid extra Rs.1799/- to Opposite Party No.1 totaling Rs.19,299/-. At the time of purchase of the Mobile Set in dispute, Opposite Party No.1 also gave assurance that if any defect in the Mobile Set in dispute occurred, same will be changed with new one. The complainant was shocked when after purchasing the Mobile Set in dispute, it started giving one problem or the other as there were numerous defects in the Mobile Set in dispute. It is further stated that Mobile Set in dispute was not charging properly and it use to hang on, on numerous occasions and thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested them to set right the Mobile Set in dispute. Lateron, Opposite Party No.1 handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre, who after repair handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to the complainant. However, the grievances of the complainant did not end here after few days ago approximately in the months of September, 2014 the mobile again started creating one or the other problem of non charging and hang on and the complainant again went to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 further handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre and this process went on for 5-6 times. Lastly a few months back the display of the said Mobile Set in dispute became defective the complainant went to the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested them to replace the Mobile Set in dispute with new one or in the alternative to refund the sale price of Rs.19,299/-, but Opposite Party No.1 flatly refused to listen to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not legally maintainable; that the answering Opposite Party has nothing to do with the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to this Forum with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. Replying Opposite Party is only a dealer and not manufacturer or service station of the Mobile Set in dispute and as such has nothing to do with this and has unnecessarily been arrayed as party to the complaint; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying Opposite Party; that the replying Opposite Party only sold the mobile in a duly packed condition as is received from the manufacturer and is not responsible for warranty because it is the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 who being manufacturer and service station respectively are liable for repair or replacement, if any, to the complainant. On merits facts narrated in the complaint are specifically denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.
- None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3,despite due service, as such they were proceeded against exparte, but however, at a later stage, Sh.Inderjit Lakhra, Advocate appeared at the stage of evidence.
- In his bid to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of insurance cover Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 30.7.2014 Ex.C3 and and closed his evidence.
- To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Anoop Bhatia, proprietor Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
- Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Arvind Saini Ex.OP2,3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
- From the appreciation of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant on 30.7.2014 purchased new Mobile Set of HTC Desire, Model No. 1 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 1755 dated 30.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.17500/-. The complainant has led evidence in the shape of his affidavit Ex.C1, wherein the allegations made in the complaint have been rightly reiterated. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, i.e. service provider and manufacturer respectively, did not opt to file any written version to the complaint filed by the complainant. It is only Opposite Party No.1 who has filed written reply controverting the allegations made in the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 is the dealer only. It is the case of the complainant that Mobile Set purchased by the complainant started creating trouble i.e. hanging/ non-charging, etc. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre for a number of occasions and also handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to Opposite Party No.2 for the purpose, but however, the grievance of the complainant was not redressed rather after a few days of the purchase of the Mobile Set in dispute i.e. in the month of September, 2014, the Mobile Set in dispute again started creating one or the other problem i.e. of non charging and hanging on. Since Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have not filed any reply to the averments made in the complaint, therefore, the evidence adduced by them in the shape of affidavit Ex.OP2,3/1 filed by Sh.Arvind Saini can not be taken into consideration for rebutting the evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case. Since the problems pointed out by the complainant pertained to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 i.e. service provider and manufacturer of Mobile Set in dispute, therefore, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are deficient in providing the service to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get his Mobile Set in dispute repaired free of cost from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 because the Mobile Set in dispute was still within warranty period.
- Consequently, we direct Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 to repair the Mobile Set in dispute of the complaint to his satisfaction, free of cost, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum Dated: 22.04.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
