Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/25

Shivam Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Customer Service - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Aggarwal

02 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 06.01.2016

Date of Decision            :   02.05.2016

Shivam Aggarwal aged 18 years son of Shri Seshu Pal Gupta, resident of House No.52/17-A, Nauhria Mal Bagh, Bharat Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.HTC Customer Service, TVS Electronics Ltd., South Phase TA, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy Chennai-60032, through its Office Incharge.

2.M/s. Mobile People, Shop No.24, 25, R.S.Model School Market, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana-141002, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.TVS Electronics Ltd., Cabin No.111, Plot No.260-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana-141001.

 

…Opposite party

 

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

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate        

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Shivam Aggarwal filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased one mobile set make HTC Desire 826 White Batch No.357290061952277 vide invoice No.1578 dated 18.5.2015 for worth of Rs.24,800/- from Op2. That mobile set was having manufacturing defect, due to which, the same started giving problem since from the time of purchase. A complaint was lodged with service centre of OP, due to which, the said mobile set was replaced with a new one. That replaced mobile set  handed over to the complainant even was defective, due to which, the same started giving problem and as such, on lodging of second complaint by the complainant, Ops again changed the mobile set of the complainant by providing a new one. Even the 3^rd mobile set handed over to the complainant was defective on account of manufacturing defect. Power button was defective, due to which, the complainant again lodged complaint with OPs on 31.8.2015 by visiting shop/office of OP3. Op3 received the mobile set of the complainant and issued DOA Certificate, so that a new mobile set may be handed over to the complainant. Complainant claims that he is not interested in new mobile set of OPs because  three  mobile sets  already handed over to him turned      defective. Complainant claims to have suffered physical as well as mental pain, agony, harassment and humiliation due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he after serving registered legal notice dated 14.9.2015, filed complaint for refund of price amount of the mobile set along with compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/-. Litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- also claimed.

2.                Notice of the complaint issued to the OPs. Though, earlier one Sh.Inderjit Kumar, Service Engineer of OP3 appeared, but later on none appeared for OP3 and as such, Op3 was proceeded against ex-parte. OP2 was served, but none appeared for him and as such, OP2 was also proceeded against ex-parte. As registered cover sent to OP1 was not received back served or unserved even after lapse of 30 days period and as such by drawing presumption of due service of OP1 and finding that none appeared for him also, he too was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Retail invoice Ex.C1 produced by the complainant to establish that he purchased HTC Desire 826 White mobile set from OP2 for consideration of Rs.24,800/-. Ex.C2 is DOA Certificate issued by OP3 on 31.8.2015. Perusal of Ex.C2 reveals that the power button of the mobile set was defective and as such, contents of complaint along with supporting affidavit Ex.CA of complainant are correct that actually 3^rd time complaint lodged with OPs on 31.8.2015, due to defect in the power button. It is borne from the contents of affidavit Ex.CA that original mobile set purchased by the complainant due to manufacturing defect was replaced with a new one, but the replaced mobile set even was defective and that is why the same stood replaced by another, which too was defective and that is why the replaced mobile set was deposited by the complainant with OP3 on 31.8.2015. Note No.1 appended on foot of Ex.C2 itself is to the effect that this DOA Certificate is valid for replacement, if accompanied along with a Valid Service Tag, issued by a HTC Certified Service Center. So, certainly Ex.C2 is the certificate issued for replacement of the deposited mobile set. As complainant had to suffer repeatedly due to receipt of the original and two times replaced defective mobile sets and as such, his agony is unbearable. The act of OPs in replacing the mobile sets with defective mobile sets twice itself is an act of unfair trade practice. Keeping in view the utmost deficiency in service on the part of OPs in providing defective mobile sets repeatedly, ends of justice warrant that worth of mobile set in question namely of Rs.24,800/- should be ordered to be refunded. As complainant had to suffer mental pain, sufferings and agony repeatedly due to receipt of defective mobile set or the replaced mobile sets and as such, complainant entitled to litigation expenses and compensation.

6.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed exparte in terms that Op1 and OP3 will refund price of mobile set in question namely Rs.24,800/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation of Rs.2500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP3. Liability of Op1 and OP3 to pay the above referred amount will be joint and several. No relief against seller i.e.OP2 granted through this ex-parte order because warranty to be provided by service centre as per Ex.C1. Compliance of directions of compensation and litigation costs be made by OP1 and OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                      (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.