Delhi

East Delhi

CC/914/2015

FIROJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC CARE - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                               

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       914/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               04/12/2015

                                                                                                  Order reserved on               10/02/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                       13/02/2017         

In matter of

Mr Firoz, Adult

s/o Nizamuddin

R/o 4458, Gali Shahtara

Ajmeri Gate,  Delhi 110006…………………………..…..…….…..…………….Complainant

                                                

                                                                         Vs

 

1 – M/s HTC Service Centre

Office no.- 201, 2^nd Floor

Sagar Plaza District Centre

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

3-HTC  India Pvt Ltd.

Office –G 4, BPTP Park Avenue,

Sec 30, Near NH 8,  Gurgaon 122002.….……………………………..……….Opponents  

 

Complainant’s Advocate ……………Prem Prakash Soni

Opponent 1& 2 …..…………………….Mayank Rana - AR

 

Quorum     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                    Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case     

                                                                         

Complainant purchased one HTC mobile model no. HTC-Desire 816 dual SIM vide IMEI 3527950656694 on dated 27/01/2015 vide order no. OD21216132765 for a sum of Rs23290/-through online and the same was delivered by Flipkart as marked  Ex.CW1/1.

 

The said mobile developed some problem, so he visited OP1 as authorized service centre of OP2. Through job sheet no. DEL022002538 dated 06/10/2015, it was told that mobile failed to detect SIM 1 slot and one mic was not working and mobile was in warranty.

 

 

So, complainant deposited his mobile with OP1 for repair and was assured by OP1 to return the mobile after seven days as marked Ex CW1/2. OP1 informed complainant that problem was not rectified as he had to pay a sum of 7000/-as the cost of repair for parts, but complainant refused to pay and stated that OP1 had not given any information at the time of depositing the mobile for repair. Thereafter, the complainant called at emergency police phone number, i.e., ‘100’ and on visiting police, OP1 told that they would return the mobile within 48 hours. But OP1 told complainant that repair charges Rs 7000/- had to be paid otherwise mobile would remain with OP1.

Complainant sent legal notice on 09/11/2015 as marked Ex CW1/3 and Ex CW1/4, but did not get any reply. Aggrieved by the services of OP1 which caused harassment and mental agony, filed this complaint claiming refund of mobile cost Rs 23290/ with harassment charges Rs 1,50,000/ and litigation charges Rs 55,000/.

 

Notices were served. AR of OP2 appeared and submitted his ID zerox. After receiving complaint copy, no written statement or evidences were submitted. Despite of giving opportunities, when none appeared from OP side, case proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which were on record. Even on the date of arguments, no one appeared from OP side.

Arguments were heard from complainant and perused the evidences placed on record, order was reserved.

 

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the said mobile was purchased on 27/01/2015 which was under standard warranty for one year. OP1 being the authorized service centre of OP2, has not provided services as per terms of the product which was under warranty period where defects existed under warranty period and without mentioning the reason for payment of Rs 7000/- from complainant kept mobile with them. As per terms and condition of HTC mobile, OP1 had to return the mobile without repair, if the said mobile was not repairable or complainant was not ready to pay.

 

 

We have also seen that the right of ownership which pertains to Mr Yogesh Chaudhary, resident of B 121, GF, Mayur Apartment, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad as he is a genuine complainant whereas job sheet and complaint is in the name of Mr Firoz. Thus, Mr. Firoz is not a genuine consumer and custodian of the said mobile under this complaint. That being so the present complaint is dismissed without any order.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari   Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                 

                                      

                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh - President