Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/265

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/265
 
1. Rakesh Kumar
s/o Tribhawan r/o Babu Singh Colony Patiala
patiala
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HTC Co.
costumr care centere Shop No. 74/75 chhoti Baradari Patiala
patiala
punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  D.R.Arora PRESIDENT
  Smt. Neelam Gupta Member
  Smt. Sonia Bansal MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Inperson, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/265 of 9.11.2015

                                      Decided on:        31.12.2015

 

Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh.Tribhawan r/o Babu Singh Colony, Patiala . M-7508291376.

         

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

H.T.C. Customer Care Image Services Shop No.74/75 Chhoti Baradari, Near Roop Gas Services, Patiala

                                                                   …………….Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   In person

For Op:                         Exparte.             

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

  1. It is alleged by the complainant that he is the owner of the mobile phone make HTC. On 30.9.2015, the mobile phone had gone defective and therefore, he approached the Op, who is the service centre of the mobile phone. The Op retained the mobile phone but the Op failed to hand over the same back after rectification. He was told by the Op that the water had entered into the mobile phone. It is alleged  that no water had entered into the mobile phone and the same is repairable. The mobile phone is within warranty period but he was being harassed for the last two months and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- besides the repair of the mobile phone.
  2. The notice of the complaint was given to the Op who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
  3. In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
  4. The complainant failed to file the written arguments.
  5. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence on record.
  6. Ex.C1 is the job sheet dated 30.9.2015 to have been issued by the Op in favor of one Harpreet Singh with regard to the mobile phone bearing IMEI No.353834062616813 having been deposited with the op with the problem of : “No Power/ Cannot boot: Hang in HTC Logo”. The mobile phone is disclosed in the job sheet to be within warranty.
  7. No doubt the job sheet appears to have been issued in the name of one Harpreet Singh but at the place meant for the signatures of the customer, the same has been signed by the complainant Sh.Rakesh, going to show that the mobile phone set was deposited by the complainant with the Op who after being satisfied about the right of the complainant to get the mobile phone repaired, within warranty period retained the same but despite the passing of a period of about 40 days it failed to rectify the same and therefore, the complainant had  to approach the Forum to get the relief on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Op.
  8. The complainant has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint in his sworn affidavit,Ex.CA and we are satisfied that the Op has failed to rectify the mobile hand set despite the same being within warranty period and therefore, it amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the Op. We accordingly accept the complaint and give a direction to the Op to rectify the mobile hand set of the complainant within 10 days and in case the same is not repairable to get the same replaced from the manufacturer with the model of the same make within one month because the Op is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.1500/-.

Pronounced

Dated:31.12 .2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ D.R.Arora]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Smt. Neelam Gupta]
Member
 
[ Smt. Sonia Bansal]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.