BHAWNA filed a consumer case on 18 Oct 2016 against HTC INDIA in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/952/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 952/2015
Date of Institution 17/12/2015
Order reserved on 18/10/2016
Date of Order 20/10/2016
In matter of
Bhawana, Adult
d/o Suresh Kapoor,
r/o- 11/222, Geeta Colony
Delhi 110031………………………..…..…….…..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-Seema Telecom
7/179 Geeta Colony Nr Block 7
Gurudwara, Delhi 110031
2- HTC Service Centre
Office no.- 201, 2nd Floor
Sagar Plaza District Centre
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092
3-HTC
Office –G 4, BPTP Park Avenue,
Sec 30, Near NH 8,
Gurgaon 122002.….………..………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant …………………………In person
Opponent ………………………… Ex Parte
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased one HTC grey mobile on 02/07/2015 for Rs 18,700/ from OP1. The said mobile developed problem in front camera with low battery backup, so, complainant deposited he mobile with OP2 for repair. It was assured by OP2 to return the mobile after seven days. It was told by OP2 that problem was rectified. After some days again, the same problem occurred and was again deposited with OP2, but the problem wee not rectified and so complainant did not collect her mobile from OP2.
Despite of sending repeat emails to OP3, no action was taken as her said mobile was with OP2. Hence, she decided to file this complaint claiming refund of mobile cost or removing of defects with harassment charges Rs 50,000/ and litigation charges RS 15,000/-.
Notices were served, but none appeared or submitted written statement or evidences. Number of times, opportunity was given, but OPs neither appeared nor filed evidences or participated in arguments. Case was proceded Ex Parte. Complainant filed her Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which are on record and not controverted.
We have heard complainant and perused the evidences placed on record. It was clear that the said mobile was purchased on 02/07/2015 for Rs 21000/- and was under standard warranty of one year from OP3. OP2 has not provided its services under warranty period and kept delaying in performing their required services. This clearly shows that OP2’ s services were deficient in nature.
In the view of above findings, the complaint is accepted and following order is passed as under—
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to Record Room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member (Dr) P N Tiwari Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.