DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                       Consumer Complaint No: 613 of 2015                                                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 18.11.2015                                                                                                                                              Date of Decision:  21.06.2016

Nikhil Sachdeva, Plot No.1342, Sector 15-2, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

HTC India Pvt. Ltd, G-4 BPTP Park Avenue, Gurgaon Sector 30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

Universal Telecom & Traders, LG-6, Devi Place Old Delhi Road, Opp. Raj Cinema, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

                                                                                              ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Shri Nikhil Sachdeva, complainant in person

                    OP-1 & OP-2  exparte.

ORDER        SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased mobile phone of HTC company model “HTC Desire 816” on 11.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.22018 with one year warranty. Due to some problem in the handset the complainant deposited the same with OP-2 the service center on 31.08.2015 where the phone was checked and job card DEL024-016824 was generated. After four days the complainant received email asking for Rs.12000/- to repair the phone though the phone was within the warranty. He contacted the OPs who told him that phone was water logged. He requested the OPs to repair the handset as it was within the warranty period but they refused to repair the same. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed  to replace the handset with new one or to refund its price along with interest. He also compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. However, opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and thus, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.02.2016.

3                 The complainant in his exparte evidence has produced End User Unit Status Ex.C-1,HTC Care Service Report Ex.C-2, complaint Ex.C-3,email correspondence Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, track record of postal department Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7 complaint made to Customer Service Head Ex.C-8,copty of postal receipt Ex.C-9 and purchase invoice Ex.C-10.

4                 We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased HTC mobile phone namely “HTC Desire 816 IMEI No.352795063153711 on 11.09.2014 with one year warranty. However, the said handset became defective and it was deposited with OP-2 on 31.08.2015 and job card was generated showing the symptoms such as “No Power/Can not Boot: Phone is dead, battery backup poor, front and back camera is not work properly, sim cover missing customer wants to repair it” . The said job card is dated 31.08.2015 (Ex.C-2) wherein it has been mentioned that the phone was within warranty and there was no mention by the service engineer of the service centre that “phone was water  logged”. Thus, the refusal by the OPs to repair the handset within the warranty period on the ground that phone was water logged tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted as the OPs failed to turn up before this Forum despite service and thus, were proceeded exparte and  thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

6                 Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to repair the handset of the complainant in question free of cost as if the same was within the warranty period  and the remaining warranty would be deemed to have been extended from the date of repair. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The OPs shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

21.06.2016                                                                                                                        President,

                                                                                                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member