Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1214/2015

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Care Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Arun Mittal

10 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                      

                                                Complaint No.  1214

                                                Instituted on:    05.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       10.05.2016

 

Mandeep Singh son of Dev Raj R/o Mohalla Fatkan Wala, Near Mandir Shri Naina Devi, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

 

                                Versus

 

1.             HTC Care Service Station, Image Services, Shop No.74-75, Chotibaranderi Mkt. Near Roop Gas, Patiala 147 001.

2.             HTC India Private Limited (Corporate Office) G-4, BPL Park Avenue, Sector 30, NHB Gurgaon (Haryana) 122 002.

3.             Golden Gifts and Entike House College Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Arun Mittal, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPs No.1 and 2   :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mandeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one HTC Desire 826 model from OP number 3 vide bill number 794 dated 28.4.2015 for Rs.25,000/- with one year warranty. It has been further averred in the complaint that the mobile in question was having the problem of ‘touch not working and some time there appears black dots in camera’, as such the complainant visited OP number 1 on 18.6.2015 to get the problems in the mobile rectified, as such, the OP number 1 deposited the mobile set in question along with box.  It is further averred that the complainant visited OP number 1 a number of times to get the mobile set, but on 10.9.2015, the OP number 1 flatly refused to return the said mobile set to the complainant. It has been further averred that though the said mobile is lying blocked and the complainant suffered mental agony also and the Ops did not return the mobile set despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to return the mobile set to the complainant after removing the defects or in the alternative to refund him the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were  proceeded exparte on 09.12.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not legally maintainable.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question, but the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It has also been denied that the complainant sent any legal notice to the OP number 3.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 postal receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 copy of job sheet and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party number 3 and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice dated 28.04.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.25,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OP number 3.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant was manufactured by OP number 2, which became defective as there were defects, such as touch panel function abnormal, touch nor working properly and sometime black dots in the camera appears therein, as such, OP number 1 kept the mobile set in question for repairs/replacement, as is evident from the copy of HTC care service report dated 18.6.2015, Ex.C-5.  But, thereafter the same was never returned to the complainant nor refunded the sale price of the mobile set in question.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs number 1 and 2 chose to remain exparte and as such even the Ops number 1 and 2 did not deny the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  As such, we feel that it is a fit case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 1 and 2 by selling the defective mobile set to the complainant.  It is on the file that the mobile set in question is with the OP number 2, as such, we find that ends of justice would be met if the Ops number 1 and 2 are directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the mobile set.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.10.2015 till realisation.   The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 10, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member