Delhi

East Delhi

CC/969/2015

AJAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 969/15

 

Shri Ajay Dubey

S/o Late Shri R.C. Dubey

House No. 42, 2^nd Floor

Saini Enclave, Karkardooma

Delhi – 110 092                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. HTC Authorised Servicce Centre

Through its authorized agent

Office No. 201, 2^nd Floor

Sagar Plaza, Distt. Centre

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Office)

Through its Directors/Authorized Agent

G-4, BPTP Park Avenue,

Sector-30, Gurgaon – 122 002                                                     ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 13.01.2016

Judgment Reserved on : 27.10.2016

Judgment Passed on : 28.10.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ajay Dubey has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against HTC Authorised Service Centre (OP-1) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for direction to pay refund of Rs. 36,000/-, the cost of mobile phone, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and cost.

2.        The complainant purchased HTC ONE E9 PLUS MOBILE PHONE vide invoice no. 4474 for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- from OP.  The mobile was under warranty till 09.09.2016.  It has been stated that the said mobile was not working since the date of purchase and contained minor defects, which was brought to the knowledge of the authorized service center.  The major problem was that its screen appeared to be having hair line colour dislocation from the top to the bottom and the complainant’s wife Mrs. Pragya Dubey visited the authorized service center and complained on 12.10.2015.  The respondent issued the service report, where it was written that the symptom was Broken LCD and an estimation of Rs. 13,000/- was written over it.  It has been stated that the OPs have been demanding an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for getting it repaired.  The act of the OPs have been stated to be in violation of the Act, arbitrary, unfair and monopolistic.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for reimbursement of amount of Rs. 36,000/- being the cost of mobile with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of omissions and commissions and cost of proceedings.

3.        Notice of the complaint was given to OPs.  However, they did not put the appearance in spite of service.  Hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.

4.        In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has stated in the affidavit that the facts in the complaint be read as part and parcel of the affidavit.  He has got exhibited documents such as affidavit (Ex.CW1/1), invoice of mobile  (Ex.CW1/2), service report (Ex.CW1/3), ID of the complainant (Ex.CW1/4) and email dated 17.11.2015 (Ex. CW1/5).

5.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the documents Ex.CW1/1, it is noticed that the complainant has purchased the handset for a sum of  Rs. 36,000/- on 10.09.2015.  Ex. CW1/3 shows that the complainant deposited the handset with the service centre on 12.10.2015, which is after a period of one month.  The report says that the LCD was broken and an estimate of Rs. 13,000/- was given to the complainant.  However, in the report, it has been stated that physical damage of handset will not be covered under warranty, but the fact that the handset has been given at the service centre, which is after a period of one month, the question of any physical damage does not arise.  Though, the complainant has not placed on record the warranty of the handset, but the fact remains that when the problem has occurred within one month, certainly it will be covered under the warranty.  The absence of placing on record the warranty documents does not have any bearing on the complaint.  The fact that OPs have failed to contest the complaint, the version given by the complainant have to be accepted.  Thus, the complainant has succeeded in proving that there was deficiency on the part of OPs.  Thus, HTC authorized service centre (OP-1) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) are jointly and severely liable for the deficient service.  Therefore, HTC authorized service centre (OP-1) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) are directed to repair the handset of the complainant within a period of 60 days.  If the order is not complied within the stipulated period, they shall have to pay the cost of the handset Rs. 36,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization.         

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President