Haryana

Panchkula

CC/163/2015

ROBIN SHEOKAND. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	163 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.02.2016

                                                                                          

Robin Sheokand s/o Sh.Satpal Singh, R/o Flat No.401, Holly Hock Block, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.       MD (HTC), HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (Dopod), G-4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Hryana-122001.

2.       Shivam Communication, SCO 38, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula.

                                                                                     …. 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.

None for the OPs.

ORDER

(S.P.Attri, Member)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a HTC Desire 816 mobile from Ajay Enterprises Booth No. 11, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana on 26.08.2014 vide bill No.12464 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.23,500/-. In the month of October/November, 2014, the mobile became dead and was taken to service center i.e. Op No.2 for service. The mobile of the complainant was sent to Gurgaon/Delhi vide ticket No.14INA440009248 for repair which was received after approximately 8 days. After repair of mobile, a new problem occurred in the mobile which was reported to HTC vide mail dated 12.11.2014 for seeking guidance in the matter. Thereafter, the mobile became dead in the month of March/April, 2015 and the same was again sent to Gurgaon/Delhi vide ticket No.15INA140005791 which was returned to the complainant after 15 days. Thereafter also, the problem in the mobile occurred time and again and the same was reported to HTC vide mail dated 27.05.2015 for the solution. The complainant sent various mails to Ops for solution but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Ops have taken every possible step to satisfy the complainant. It is submitted that on 20.07.2015, the OP No.1 contacted the complainant to resolve the issue, however, the complainant informed that he needed replacement of the unit and thereafter, the Ops advised the service center to contact the complainant and requested him to submit the device for repairs but the complainant denied to submit the device for repair. It is submitted that the Ops has done its best to satisfy the complainant with offering 100% quality and check repairs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op 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 evidence on behalf of Ops and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
5. A careful perusal of the file reveals that undoubtedly, the complainant purchased a HTC Desire 816 mobile from Ajay Enterprises Booth No. 11, Sector 11, Panchkula vide invoice No.12464 (Annexure C-1) dated 26.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.23,500/-. In the month of October/November, 2014, the mobile became dead and was taken to service center i.e. Op No.2 for repair. The mobile of the complainant was sent to Gurgaon/Delhi vide ticket No.14INA440009248 for repair which was received after approximately 8 days. After repair of mobile, a new problem occurred in the mobile, which was reported to HTC vide mail dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure -3) and thereafter, the mobile became dead in the month of March/April, 2015 due to which the mobile was again sent to Gurgaon/Delhi vide ticket No.15INA140005791 (Annexure C-6) which was returned to the complainant after 15 days. Thereafter also, the problem in the mobile was occurred time and again, which was reported to HTC through various mails (Annexure C-7 to C-15) but to no avail. 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 Ops in their written statement also accepted that the complainant approached the service center for repair but they failed to satisfy the complainant. The Ops have also not appeared at the time of arguments to defend their case. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset is deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
6. Evidently, the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.23,500/- 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.
7. 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. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.23,500/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- 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

01.02.2016       S.P.ATTRI                   ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

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

 

    

                                 

                                                         S.P.ATTRI

                                                          MEMBER