Haryana

Panchkula

CC/244/2015

CUBIC LIFE SCIENCES PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDER MOHAN.

04 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	244 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2016

                                                                                          

Cubic Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. through there Director Chander Mohan.

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

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

2.       Croma Store, SCO No.1094-1095, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh-160022.

3.       Shivam Communication, SCO 38, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

                                                                                    …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Ops No.1 and 3 already ex-parte.

Mr.Nitin Mohalla, authorized representative for the OP No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a HTC Desire 516 mobile for a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 23.10.2014 from OP No.2 (Annexure C-1). After six months, the mobile started giving problem of hanging, touch panel was not working properly and data saving problem in internal memory. The complainant approached the service center i.e. Op No.3 and gave the mobile for repair on 01.09.2015. The OP No.3 told the complainant that they would send it in Company and it would be come back in 10 days and issued a job card (Annexure C-2). After 5 days, the Op No.3 told the complainant that he had to pay Rs.8700/- for repair and the complainant said that his phone was under warranty but they refused to repair the mobile under warranty and after getting the phone back, he saw that some parts of the mobile were missing. The complainant did not take back his mobile from service center. The Op No.3 told the complainant that they would again send it back to Company for missing parts and till date the complainant did not get back his mobile. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 3. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2015.
3. The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is a reputed company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata sons with a well established brand name in the sector of electronics retail. It is submitted that the Op No.2 has a stellar record in its sector since its inception in 2005. It is submitted that the Op No.2 has always to endeavor to fulfill every requirement of customers to choose best products meeting their requirements and budget. It is submitted that the business philosophy of OP No.2 is to make the customers shopping experience delightful post purchase too. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is a retailer involved in the business of retail selling of electronics goods. It is submitted that the profile of Op No.2 included buying of various electronics products from different manufacturers in bulk quantities at trade/volume discounts and then selling the product of manufactures to customers on an order-by-order basis. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is known for its services and they provide the best possible services to all their clients. It is submitted that the Op No.2 was merely involved in the demonstration, guidance and support to the customers through its hired employees. It is submitted that the Op No.2 functioned through its established retail stores in different parts of the country. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile from Op No.2 on 23.10.2014 with a warranty of one year i.e. till 22.10.2015 for an amount of Rs12,500/-. It is submitted that the Op No.2 was not held responsible for any manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the OP No.2 has not received any complaint from the complainant regarding problem in mobile. It is submitted that the OP No.2 is a retailer and not the manufacturer of the product. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.2 has made a separate statement in which he stated that his written statement might be read as his evidence and did not want to file any more evidence and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard complainant appearing in person and authorized representative for the Op No.2 and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the file reveals that undoubtedly, the complainant purchased a HTC Desire 516 mobile for a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 23.10.2014 from OP No.2 (Annexure C-1). After six months, the mobile started giving problem of hanging, touch panel was not working properly and data saving problem in internal memory. The complainant approached the service center i.e. Op No.3 and gave the mobile for repair on 01.09.2015. The OP No.3 sent the mobile to Company for repair and issued a job card (Annexure C-2) with remarks “mmc not accept and touch pad not work proper”. After 5 days, the Op No.3 told that the complainant had to pay Rs.8700/- for repair. The complainant told that his phone is under warranty but the Op No.3 refused to repair the mobile under warranty and after getting the mobile back, the complainant saw that some parts of the mobile were missing. The Op No.3 sent the mobile back to Company for missing parts and till date the complainant did not get back his mobile. When all the frantic efforts made by the complainant, failed to rectify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. The Op No.2 in its written statement also accepted that the complainant approached the service center for repair. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 in not rectifying the defective mobile handset is deficiency in service on its part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
7. Moreover, the Ops No.1 and 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops No.1 and 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant.
8. Evidently, the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.12,500/- to purchase the handset having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed qua Ops No.1 and 3. The Ops No.1 and 3 are directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.12,500/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

04.05.2016       S.P.ATTRI                   ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT