Punjab

Moga

CC/16/132

Radhe Mohan Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Corporation, - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 132 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 02.08.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 14.12.2016

 

Radhe Mohan Garg s/o Sh. Raghubir Kumar Garg, r/o H.No. 689, St. No.6, Vedant Nagar, Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       HTC Corporation, G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Near NH-8, Sector 30, Gurgaon - 122002, through Authorized Person/ Representative.

 

2.       HTC Service Centre, TVS Electronics Ltd, SCO-103, Ground Floor, Sec - 47C, Chandigarh - 160047, through Manager.

 

3.       MPS Telecom Private Limited, D-55, First & Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- I, New Delhi- 110020, through Managing Director.

 

4.       S.K. Retail Ventures, SCO-33, Lower Basement, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, through owner.

 

5.       Rashpal Telecom, 6, Red Cross Market, Court Road, Moga, Punjab, through Manager.  

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh. Radhe Mohan, complainant in person alongwith counsel Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

                   Sh. Mohit, Central Manager for opposite party nos.1 & 2.

                   Opposite party nos. 3, 4 & 5 ex-parte.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against HTC Corporation, G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Near NH-8, Sector 30, Gurgaon, through Authorized Person/ Representative and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay Rs.15,000/- for purchase of used handset, Rs.95,000/- as mental agony and harassment, Rs.10,000/- as deficiency in service in replacement and repair of handset, Rs.10,000/- as manufacturing defect in the handset, Rs. 23,000/- as Inovice Price of defective handset total Rs.1,53,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12 % till final realization and further to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased cellular phone Model HTC Desire 816 manufactured by opposite party no.1 worth Rs.23,000/- on dated 10.10.2014 from opposite party no.4 against invoice no.4345. Surprisingly in the 4^th week of October, 2014 the complainant started experiencing various complications and issues apropos the functioning of aforesaid phone i.e. battery draining, phone freezing, charger malfunction, network problem, Mis malfunction, display flickering, main camera malfunction so on and so forth. On it, the complainant approached opposite party no.4 for the necessary intimation and redressal of aforesaid issue and he was asked to submit his phone with opposite party no.4 for general check up. After a fortnight the complainant was asked to collect his phone, as the opposite party no.4 was unable to find fault in the handset. Time and again, the complainant has tried to approach HTC Customer Care, whereas due to long queue the call remains unattended and thereafter he visited HTCs Chandigarh Service Centre i.e. opposite party no.2 several times to get his phone replaced or repaired, but could only be accommodated on his 3^rd visit due to the long waiting because of rush at opposite party no.2. He submitted his phone with opposite party no.2 in April, 2015 against ticket no.151NA190004248 and Serial no. FA495MZ02584 and was asked to collect his phone after 10 days. On 11^th days, the complainant approached to opposite party no.2 to find that his phone is neither replaced nor repaired and thereby he was again asked to approach opposite party no.2 after 7 days. The complainant being in imminent need of his phone again approached the opposite party no.2 after 1 week, whereas again denied and was asked to approach opposite party no.2, after 1 week, whereas surprisingly again encountered with the same fate, henceforth such an careless, casual and negligent act & conduct of opposite party no.2 squarely reveals insensitive and lackadaisical approach towards complainant's grievance. The complainant lodged various complaint with opposite party nos.1 & 2 through e-mails, whereas the same remains unresolved despite giving repeated reminders, through e-mails and in person. At last, the phone was delivered to the complainant on dated 15.05.2015, after around one and half month with an additional issue of Camera malfunction, network and call dropping, battery draining etc. and thus again the complainant forwarded emails to opposite party nos.1 & 2 for resolving the aforesaid issue, but the issue still remains unresolved despite there being repeated reminders, through e-mails and in person. After exhausting all the possible options at company's behest and left with no alternative, the complainant again submitted his phone on dated 27.06.2015 with opposite party no.2 as directed by opposite party no.1 to get the handset diagnosed by their technicians whereby the opposite party no.2 promised the complainant to take deliver of his handset on 8^th of July, 2015, whereas opposite party nos.1 & 2 being accustomed to provide deficient service, kept on lingering the delivery of handset citing useless and extraneous reasons. Again being infuriated the complainant forwarded various complaints through e-mails to opposite party nos.1 & 2, whereas no assistance or solution had been extended to avoid harassment, exploitation and inconvenience to the complainant. At last the handset was delivered on dated 31.08.2015, after around two & half month, with same issues and again the complainant through various e-mails to opposite party nos.1 & 2 requested for the replacement of his handset, because of manufacturing defect in the earlier purchased handset, whereas the opposite party nos.1 & 2 intentionally and arbitrarily made mockery of the provision contained in the Consumer Protect Act. On dated 19.09.2015, the complainant again deposited the phone with local service centre i.e. opposite party no.5 at Moga to get the phone replace at opposite party no.1 behest whereby opposite party no.5 after keeping the handset under custody for about 2 months denied to replace the same, despite admitting the manufacturing fault in the handset. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 30.05.2016 to opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to acts of opposite parties the complainant suffered huge mental tension, harassment and agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, written reply on behalf of opposite party no.2 was received by post, whereby they submitted that on perusing the complaint filed by the complainant, the complaint against opposite party no.2 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by this Forum for lack of authenticity. Further submitted that opposite party no.2 i.e. TVS Electronics Limited is well known for its customer-centricity and high level of service efficiency, recipient of quality awards. Further submitted that the complainant had got his handset repaired twice - once in May, 2015 and again in July, 2015 and the servicing was done satisfactorily. After that, there was no complaint registered with opposite party no.2 in the last one year. The notice has come as a big surprise to opposite party no.2. The complaint submitted against opposite party no.2 may be rejected.

4.                On the other hand, written reply on behalf of opposite party no.1 was not filed, Rather, Sh. Mohit, Central Manager, who appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.1 & 2 had suffered a statement that written reply sent on behalf of opposite party no.2 be read as written reply on behalf of opposite party no.1.

5.                None appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.3 & 4, despite notice. As such, after expiry of statutory period of one month since issue of notice, opposite party nos.3 & 4 were proceeded against ex-parte. Notice of the complaint sent to opposite party no.5 duly served. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.5. As such, opposite party no.5 was proceeded against ex-parte.

6.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-6 and Ex.C6A and closed the evidence. 

7.                On the other hand, opposite party nos.1 & 2 tendered in evidence copies of Job Sheets as Ex.OP-1, 2/1 and Ex.OP-1, 2/2 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

9.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that complainant purchased Cellular phone Model HTC Desire 816, manufactured by opposite party no.1 worth Rs.23,000/- on 10.10.2014, vide invoice no. 4345 from opposite party no.4. The complainant started experience various complications and issues regarding functioning in the mobile i.e. battery draining, phone freezing, charger malfunction, network problem, Mic. Malfunction, display flickering, main camera mal function etc. The complainant approached opposite party no.4, who asked the complainant to submit the phone with them for general check up. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to collect his phone, as opposite party no.4 was unable to find fault in the handset. Thereafter, the complainant has tried to approach HTC Customer Care i.e. opposite party no.2 and submitted the phone with it. He was asked to collect his phone after 10 days. After 10 days, the complainant approached to opposite party no.2, but the mobile phone of the complainant neither replaced nor repaired. Again, the complainant approached opposite party no.2 many times, but to no effect. At last, on 15.05.2015, the phone was delivered to the complainant without resolving the defect. The complainant with no alternative again submitted his phone with opposite party no.2 as directed by opposite party no.1. Thereafter the hand set was delivered to the complainant on dated 31.08.2015 with the same issues and the again the complainant through various e-mails to opposite party nos.1 & 2 requested for the replacement of his handset, because of manufacturing defect. The complainant again deposited the phone with local service centre i.e. opposite party no5 at Moga to get the phone replaced as per direction of opposite party no.1. But after keeping the handset under custody for about two months, they denied to replace the same, despite admitting the manufacturing defect in the handset, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite parties.

10.              On the other hand, Sh. Mohit, Central Manager for opposite party nos.1 & 2 argued that opposite party no.1 is manufacturer of handset in dispute and opposite party no.2 is authorized service centre of opposite party no.1. Opposite parties are well known for their customer centricity and high level of service efficiency, recipient of quality awards. The complainant had got his handset repaired twice once in May, 2015 and again in July, 2015 and the servicing was done satisfactorily. After that the complainant never approached to opposite party no.2 with complaint of any defect in his mobile phone. The complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint only the harm the reputation of opposite party nos.1 & 2 and the present complaint may be dismissed.

11.              It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from opposite party no.4, which is manufactured by opposite party no.1 and there was a one year warranty against any manufacturing defect on the said mobile handset. During the warranty period, some problem occurred in the mobile handset and the complainant approached to opposite parties for getting remove the defect, but they failed to remove the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again approached opposite parties with the same problem, but they further failed to remove the defect from the product. To prove his case, the complainant produced on record copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of warranty statement as Ex.C-3, copies of e-mails and complaints made by him to opposite parties as Ex.C-4, copy of job sheet dated 26.07.2015 issued by opposite party no.2 as Ex.C-5 and copy of legal notice as Ex.C-6. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 themselves produced copies of job sheets as Ex.OP-1, 2/1 and Ex.OP-1, 2/2. From it the case of the complainant is fully proved. Opposite party no.1, who is manufacturer of the product had given one year warranty on the product and is liable to remove all the defects from the product to the satisfaction of the customer. In the present case, admittedly there was defect in the mobile handset of the complainant and he approached to opposite parties for its repair time and again, but they failed to remove the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant. So, from the acts of the opposite parties, it is established that there is some manufacturing defect in the product, which cannot removed by repair.

12.              From the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against opposite party nos.1 & 2. As such, opposite party nos.1 & 2 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model. Further opposite party nos.1 & 2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The present complaint against opposite party nos. 3, 4 & 5 stands dismissed. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 14.12.2016.

 

                                                 (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                            Member                                    President