BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.329 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.09.2014

Date of Decision :09.04.2015

Heera Singh son of Harcharan Singh R/o 1082, Stree No.7, Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. HTC Care Centre, Shree Communications, Shop No.5, G.S.Baweja Complex, Opp.Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through authorized person.

2. United Telecoms Ltd, 18A/19, Doddanekundi Industrial Area, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore-5600478 through MD/Authorized person.

3. BIGC Mobiles Pvt Ltd, Vittal Rao Nagar, BIGC Tower, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Secundrabad, through Authorized Person.

4. HTC Customer Care, E-99, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, India-110024 through authorized person.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth.Rep. for OPs No.1 & 4.

OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased one HTC mobile phone model Desire 600-C Dual Sim IMEI No.357211050118928 for an amount of Rs.25,504/- vide retail invoice/cash memo No.I/WS/1208 dated 8.10.2013 from opposite party No.3 via online purchase. The mobile was purchased for self use with specifications of CDMA and GSM as per job requirement of the complainant. At the time of sale above mobile set to the complainant, it was told that the company provide warranty for its product for one year from the date of purchase of the product. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer/importer of mobile having trade mark HTC, carrying on business throughout India including Jalandhar District. Opposite party No.1 authorized service centre is under care and supervision and control of opposite parties No.2 & 4 in Jalandhar. Opposite party No.3 is an online store dealing in sale of mobiles of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.4 is the approved customer care centre to take complaints on phone and direct the customer in resolving the complaint. After use of the mobile only for a period of four months, it was noticed by the complainant that mobile set was not upto mark and it did not have a proper power backup as it should have had. Since the mobile hand set started giving trouble as narrated (supra) within warranty period soon after its purchase, the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 as advised by opposite party No.1. Problem was for the first time referred to the opposite party No.4 through email on 5.3.2014, subsequently many mails were exchanged to get the matter resolved. Opposite party No.4 told the complainant to contact opposite party No.1 for rectification of defect, correct its performance and to remove manufacturing defect to make it workable and functioning properly. The complainant was asked to submit the old battery with opposite party No.1 so that a repair ticket can be prepared and only then replacement of battery will be dispatched to which the complainant objected as leaving the battery meant keeping the phone off till the time the new battery was received and the same was installed in the phone. Despite repeated requests the complainant forced by the circumstances created due to the opposite parties No.1,2,&4 deposited the phone with the authorized service station at Jalandhar i.e opposite party No.1 on 16.5.2014 for the replacement of the battery for proper battery backup. The service centre engineer found that apart from the battery, the set otherwise was also faulty so they collected the handset from the complainant. The troubling mobile set was delivered/handed over to opposite party No.1 vide ticket No.14IN200007762. However when the repaired mobile set was returned back on 21.5.2014 after using the same for few days the complainant was still facing the same old problem with the mobile set. The defect had not been removed/rectified at all. So again on 5.6.2014 the phone had to be left with opposite party No.1 for removing the same defect as was before, and still was persisting vide ticket No.14IN230006902. This time to the despair of the complainant the phone remained with the opposite party No.1 for 47 days and was returned only on 21st July after repeated enquiries and requests. Meanwhile the complainant was also forced to buy a new phone with the same specification as was required to suit his job for the value of Rs.8499/- on 28.6.2014. The complainant had to resubmit the phone with opposite party No.1 on 2.8.2014 vide ticket No.14INA310013936 as the power back up was still not proper and in addition to this the camera of the phone also started giving problem due to reason best known to the opposite parties as the phone remained with them most of the time. To the despair of the complainant the mobile set is still with opposite party No.1 who are not giving clear whereabouts/information about the mobile phone. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.25,504/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses and further cost of the newly purchased mobile handset.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 and 4 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that opposite parties No.1 & 4 are ready to replace the handset.

3. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. Written statement of opposite party No.3 was received through post and same has been placed on record. In its written statement, opposite party No.3 pleaded that it is the manufacturer who provides the warranty.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 4 has suffered a statement that written statement filed by opposite parties No.1 & 4 be read as part of their evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the present parties.

8. In their written reply in the first instance opposite parties No.1 & 4 have pleaded that they are ready to replace the handset. However, the complainant has to file the present complaint before the opposite parties No.1 & 4 became ready to replace the defective handset. So, in this view of matter, the complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

9. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and the opposite parties No.1 & 4 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant in lieu of old one. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.04.2015 Member Member President