In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No.17/2012 1) Vishal Bothra, 11, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700007. ----------- Complainant ---Versus--- 1) HTC India Pvt. Ltd. G 4 BPTP Park Centre, Senctor-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin-122001. 2) Salora International Ltd. 5, Commissariat road, Kolkata-22, P.S. Hasting. ---------- Opposite Parties Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member. Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member Order No. 15 Dated 23-05-2013. The case of the complainant in short is that being inspired from advertisement made by HTC company complainant decided to purchase a mobile set manufactured by this company. On 30.12.10 complainant visited the shop named “Agarwal Communication” of Ideal Plaza, 11/1, Sarat Bose Road, Ground Floor, Shop No.008, Kolkata-20 and purchased a mobile set being “WILDFIRE A3333” of HTC Company having IMEI No.354692044391619 on the same day with a price of Rs.13,900/-. That upon payment of the purchase amount complainant was handed over the said hand set along with warranty card for the period of one year. It is pertinent to mention that after purchase of the said handset, complainant is facing several unwanted and unexpected problem in handling the mobile set. Initially the said handset started creating problem in non-functioning of the touch screen. Immediately complainant was referred the same to service centre (Cell-O-Service, P-17, Mission Row Extn, Kolkata-13) and the defected touch screen was replaced by them with an assurance that such incidents will not happen with the handset further. On several occasions i.e. more than 6 times, the desired defective handset showed various malfunction such as system get hanged, phone operation became slow, low battery back up, auto restart of the handset at any time. The said handset was further sent to service centre on 8.7.11 with same repeated problem (hang out of the system, low battery back up, auto restart) and the same was returned to the complainant after servicing. Once again the same problem started with the handset and complainant further requested the customer care representative of HTC to rectify the defects. That being understood by the HTC customer care about the manufacturing defects in my mobile handset, they decided to exchange complainant’s handset by another handset having IMEI NO.357758041620594 on 16.7.11 vide Job sheet no.R5S1107160005 and handed over the same to the complainant. The said handset is again been submitted to the service centre (Salora International Ltd.) on 2.1.12 against job sheet no.RINSTS120102001 for the same problem i.e. hand out of the system, low battery back up, auto restart, screen black out, force close error. The warranty period of the said device is for 12 months from the date of purchase of the product and the same expires on 30-.12.11. And due to terrible mal-functioning of the new handset, complainant had to suffer a lot. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint. O.p. no.2 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.1 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.1. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Decision with reasons: We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find being inspired from advertisement made by HTC company complainant decided to purchase a mobile set manufactured by this company. On 30.12.10 complainant visited the shop named “Agarwal Communication” of Ideal Plaza, 11/1, Sarat Bose Road, Ground Floor, Shop No.008, Kolkata-20 and purchased a mobile set being “WILDFIRE A3333” of HTC Company having IMEI No.354692044391619 on the same day with a price of Rs.13,900/-. That upon payment of the purchase amount complainant was handed over the said hand set along with warranty card for the period of one year. It is pertinent to mention that after purchase of the said handset, complainant is facing several unwanted and unexpected problem in handling the mobile set. Initially the said handset started creating problem in non-functioning of the touch screen. Immediately complainant was referred the same to service centre (Cell-O-Service, P-17, Mission Row Extn, Kolkata-13) and the defected touch screen was replaced by them with an assurance that such incidents will not happen with the handset further. We further find from the record that on several occasions i.e. more than 6 times, the desired defective handset showed various malfunction such as system get hanged, phone operation became slow, low battery back up, auto restart of the handset at any time. It is seen from the record that the said handset was further sent to service centre on 8.7.11 with same repeated problem (hang out of the system, low battery back up, auto restart) and the same was returned to the complainant after servicing. Once again the same problem started with the handset and complainant further requested the customer care representative of HTC to rectify the defects. That being understood by the HTC customer care about the manufacturing defects in my mobile handset, they decided to exchange complainant’s handset by another handset having IMEI NO.357758041620594 on 16.7.11 vide Job sheet no.R5S1107160005 and handed over the same to the complainant. It is also seen that the said handset is again been submitted to the service centre (Salora International Ltd.) on 2.1.12 against job sheet no.RINSTS120102001 for the same problem i.e. hand out of the system, low battery back up, auto restart, screen black out, force close error. And the warranty period of the said device is for 12 months from the date of purchase of the product and the same expires on 30-.12.11. And due to terrible mal-functioning of the new handset, complainant had to suffer a lot. In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps had sufficient deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief. Hence, ordered, That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.1. O.ps. are jointly and/.or severally directed to refund of Rs.13,900/- (Rupees thirteen thousand nine hundred) only to the complainant being the purchase amount of the mobile set and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. | 
