BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurinder Singh s/o Sh.Kuldil Singh, R/o House No.2031, Village Burail, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Hotspots Retails Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1046-1047, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its M.D.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Ajay Mahajan, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

            Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a mobile phone Model No.Fly DS410 vide invoice dated 14.11.2008 for Rs.3800/- on which accidental damage care pack validity from 14.11.2008 to 13.11.2010 was given on payment of Rs.300/-, which the complainant paid to OP, vide annexure C-1. The OP assured that in case of accidental damage to the mobile phone, the OP was to repair the mobile phone free of cost. The Mobile phone accidently slipped from the pocket of the complainant and its display screen developed cracks, when the complainant slipped on the road and fell down. The complainant took the handset to OP who issued receipt for service job on 18.9.2010, vide annexure C-2. The OP despite various visits of the complainant failed to get the mobile set repaired and did not return the same to the complainant. Alleging the said act as deficiency in service on the part of OP, this complaint has been filed.

2.             Notice was served to the OP. In their written reply, OP has pleaded that warranty is provided by the manufacturer therefore all the deficiency qua the defective handset shall be raised against the manufacturer and not against the answering OP. It is pleaded that the complainant has no case against it and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In these circumstances, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

3.             The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           There is no dispute about the fact that the OP has given accidental damage pack to the complainant from 14.11.2008 to 13.11.2010 on payment of Rs.300/-. On perusal of the facts placed on file by the complainant, where he has alleged that, inspite of the fact that accident damage care pack which has valid for two years was given by OPs for a payment of Rs.300/- extra in order to repair the mobile set free of costs in case of unintentional accident damage to the product during term of the care pack at the Hot Spot Centres.                  Vide Annexure C-1, in clause 11 of Hot Spot Care Pack (Two Year Warranty against Liquid and Physical Damage), it is mentioned that ‘The duration or validity of this care pack has two different validity periods one for the additional warranty and other for accidental damage, as mentioned in the agreement. Further more, Validity of accident damage contract shall be valid for two year from the date of this agreement’. Even the OP had offered to pay Rs.1500/- lumpsum as one time settlement to the complainant which indicates that the OP in a way has admitted the damage caused to the product. That offer was remained unacceptable by the complainant. Hence this complaint because of the act of the non delivery of the repaired set on the part of the OP, which constitutes deficiency in service on their part.

6.           On the other hand, the OP has vehemently denied any deficiency on his part on the ground that warranty is provided by manufacturer, therefore, all the deficiency qua the defective handset shall be raised against the manufacturer and not against him. However, he further stated that he is only to provide corrective maintenance services, supply and replacement of defective part including any unintentional accident damage to the product. He himself has admitted to make payment to the complainant for the settlement of damaged mobile set as one time settlement.

7.           In view of the foregoing discussions and documents placed on record by the complainant, it has been established that complainant deserves services free of cost for the accidental damage mobile set as per warranty, annexure C-1. But that has not been done by the OP despite their assurance to give it back.

8.           In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OP is deficient in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, there is merit in the complaint and hence it is allowed. The OP is directed to replace the mobile set with new one failing which OP shall refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant.  The OP is also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation costs as well as Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment. The OP shall comply with the order within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.11.2010 till the entire payment is made to the complainant.

8.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.