Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/596/2014

Ashok Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Customer Service at TVS Electronics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vipil Dharmani

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	596/2014
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	29.06.2015

 

                                                

                                               

Ashok Bansal r/o Flat No.18, Shresth Housing Complex-3, Balaji-2, Zirakpur-140603.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       HTC Customer Service at TVS Electronics Ltd., South Phase-7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032 through its Manager.

2.       M/s Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., Registered Office: SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

3.       M/s Vignesh Service (Authorized Service Centre), SCO 189-90, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                        OPs  exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset make – HTC Desire 310, from Opposite Party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 26.07.2014 for Rs.11,499/- Annexure C-1, having warranty of one year. After few days of the purchase of the said mobile handset, it  started giving problems of heating up, switch on and off itself, software and internet problem and, therefore, the same was taken to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs who directed the complainant to take the same to Opposite Party No.3 i.e. authorized Service Centre. The mobile handset was deposited with Opposite Party No.3 vide job card/customer information slip dated 18.10.2014 Annexure C-2. It was further stated that, however, Opposite Party No.3, failed to rectify the defects of the said mobile handset, despite the fact that the same had been retained by it, for a sufficient longer period. It was further stated that the complainant visited the premises of Opposite Party No.3, a number of times, with a request to repair the said handset and return the same, but it lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other. Even spare parts of the said mobile handset were not available with Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the said mobile handset suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. Even till date, the mobile handset was not working and had been kept with Opposite Party No.3 for repairs, meaning thereby that a defective product was sold to the complainant.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service, OP No.2 did not appear and therefore,  it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.03.2015.
3.           It is pertinent to mention here that  earlier the complaint was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant vide order dated 26.03.2015.
4.           Aggrieved against the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission which was accepted vide order dated 08.05.2015. The operative part of the said order, aforesaid, reads as under:-

“14.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted.  The order impugned is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to restore the same, to its original number, proceed further,  from the stage, at which, it was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant, and decide the same, afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  However, the appellant/complainant is burdened with costs of Rs.3,000/- for causing delay, in the disposal of complaint, afresh, on merits. The payment of costs, in equal shares i.e. Rs.1500/- each, to respondents No.1 and 3/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, shall be a condition precedent. 

15.           The Parties are directed to appear before District Forum (II) on 15.05.2015, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings. 

16.            The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 15.05.2015, at 10.30 A.M”.

5.           On the date fixed i.e. 15.05.2015, nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3 and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 04.06.2015 for compliance of the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission.  On 04.06.2015, the case was called several times but nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3 to accept the costs, as imposed by the Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 08.05.2015 or to contest the case by filing reply to the complaint and evidence, by way of affidavit and left with no other alternative, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte and the complaint case was ordered to be restored to its original number.
6.           We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
7.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 26.07.2014 vide which he purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.11,499/-. He has also placed on record the job sheet dated 18.10.2014 whereby he handed over the mobile handset in question to the service center i.e. OP No.3 with the problems of heating up, auto on/off, whatapp not working, downloading etc. He has also placed, on record, his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has specifically stated in his affidavit that after 18.10.2010 he approached the OP No.3 a number of times to collect the mobile handset but it told him that the same was still under repair and the spare parts which had to be changed were not available and they had ordered for the same.  He has further stated in his affidavit that OP No.3 has failed to remove the defects or replace the phone despite his repeated requests and rather it made lame excuses. Non-repairing of the mobile handset within the warranty period despite repeated requests of the complainant itself gives an impression that the same is suffering from some major defect and that cannot be set right by effecting the repairs. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.11,499/-  to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29.06.2015

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER