Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/223/2015

Ram Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Do

27 May 2016

ORDER

                                               DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                                            Consumer Complaint No: 223 of 2015                                                                                                                                       Date of Institution: 04.05.2015                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Decision: 27.05.2016

Ram Singla W2A 012, Wellington Estate DLF City, Phase-5, Near Golf Course, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.                                                                                                                                                                                  ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Managing Director, HTC India Pvt. Ltd G 4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

The Manager, WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18,  B’ Block, 9th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka.

 

The Manager, TVSE Electronics Ltd, SCO-104, First Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh-160047.

 

The Manager, TVS Electronics Ltd, C-102, 1st Floor, C-Block, Ansal Plaza, Khel Gaon Marg, HUDCO Place, New Delhi-110049.

 

The Manager,  Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Next to Wipro Office, Corporation Ward No.68, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka.

 

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

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

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                  

Present:        Complainant in person

                    OP-1, 3 and 4 exparte

                    Shri Awnish Kumar, Adv for the OP-2 & OP-5.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased mobile handset of HTC one 801e manufactured by OP-1 through OP-5 for a sum of Rs.43,622/- on 31.08.2013 with one year warranty and another one year extended warranty vide Tax Invoice No.#DEL20130800263675.  However, within one year of its purchase the handset started giving problem with camera as it started developing a pink haze effect. On 12.07.2014 he submitted his handset with OP-3 in order to get the same repaired. However, after repair the handset worked smoothly for some time but later on it started giving problem of shutting down  of its own. He again submitted the handset with OP-4 on 22.07.2014 but the OP-4 failed to rectify the defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the handset and to compensate him but of no use. The complainant sent legal notice and in reply to the same OP-1 has offered 1-1 replacement of HTV one device 801e which was not acceptable to the complainant.  Non refund of the price of the mobile phone by OP-1 tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the handset Rs.43,622/- and also to pay Rs.2 Lacs as compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.21000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. However, OP-1, 3 & 4 were failed to appear before this Forum despite service and thus, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.07.2015.

3                 OP-2 has alleged in its written reply that OP-2 is not engaged in selling of any goods manufactured or produced by its own. OP-2 is not the manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant and thus, the complainant is not entitled to liable to pay any compensation and thus, the complaint against OP-2 is liable to be dismissed.

4                 OP-5 in its written reply has alleged that the role/involvement of OP-5 is as an intermediary and only that is to provide online platform to facilitate the transaction in the whole transaction of sale and purchase of goods by the respective sellers and buyers on its website and the OP-5 is not engaged in selling of any goods of its own. OP-5 only provides online platform to different registered sellers where they sell goods and visitors/buyers of the website, voluntarily enter into  transaction of purchase of various goods from those sellers at their own choice.

5                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file.

6                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the mobile phone manufactured by OP-1 developed defects within warranty period of one year and was taken to the service station i.e. OP-3 as well as OP-4 vide job card (Ann-2 and Ann-3 respectively)  but they failed to rectify the defect and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7                 However, as per the contention of OP-2 & 5, they are not the manufacturer and if any defect is developed in the mobile phone then it is the obligation of the manufacturer either to rectify the defects or to replace the handset and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.2 & 5.

8                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone manufactured by OP-1 through OP-5 for a sum  of Rs.43,622/- vide invoice dated 31.08.2013. However, the above said handset developed defect within one year of the warranty and was taken to the authorized service station two times but the defect could not be removed . OP-1 also offered replacement of 1-1. Thus,  it show that the handset was having inherent defect and the services station of the manufactured failed to rectify the defect. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

9                 Therefore, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the price of the handset (on deposit of old handset or on production of  the original job card if handset lying with service station) with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The OP-1 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)

27.05.2016                                                                                                                                     President,

                                                                                                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)       

Member