Delhi

East Delhi

CC/862/2015

SAURABH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                               

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       862/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               12/11/2015

                                                                                                  Order reserved on               27/02/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        27/02/2017         

In matter of

Mr Saurabh Jain, Adult

R/o D 72, Preet Vihar

Delhi 110092……..…………………………..…..…….…..…………….Complainant

                                                

                                                                         Vs

 

1 –M/s Connector

C1, Aruna Park, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi 110092

 

2M/s HTC Service Centre

Office no.- 201, 2^nd Floor

Sagar Plaza District Centre

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

3-HTC  India Pvt Ltd.

Office –G 4, BPTP Park Avenue,

Sec 30, Near NH 8, 

Gurgaon 122002.….………..………………….…………………………Opponents

 

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-816 DESIRE dual SIM vide IMEI 352795063574015 on dated 10/10/2014 from The Connector /OP1 vide invoice no. 1367 for a sum of Rs 23900/ as marked Ex.CW1/1. On dated 25/05/2015 the said mobile developed some problem in touch screen, so he visited authorized service centre OP2. It was told that the touch screen was broken not under warranty, so complainant paid for the damages for a sum of Rs 4,961/ and the said mobile was returned by OP2 on 16/06/2015.  

Thereafter again touch screen problem occurred on 01/07/2015 and was taken to OP2 who told the same defect and damages were paid by the complainant and mobile was taken back on 21/07/2015. The said mobile again developed some problem so was taken to OP2 who said that there was some “Bar Code” problem which was rectified on the spot and no charges were taken as this problem was under warranty condition. Again on dated 31/08/2015, touch screen problem occurred, so mobile was taken to OP2 who told that damaged part may be replacement for working of touch screen and had to pay approximately Rs 8,500/.

OP2 prepared a detailed job sheet vide no. DEL022-0022840 on dated 31/08/2015 as the said mobile was under warranty. The problems mentioned in the job sheet were as “Touch not working properly and back camera not clear”.

Complainant did not pay the amount for touch screen repair nor collected his mobile which was lying with OP2. Complainant alleged that touch screen defect occurred due to OP2 as mobile was with OP2. He also alleged that OP1 had sold defective mobile and had manufacturing defect thus OPs were doing unfair trade practice and were liable for replacement of defective mobile. He filed this complaint claimed refund of the cost of mobile Rs 23,900/-with Rs 30,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs 15,000/- as litigation charges.

 

Notices were served. None appeared for OPs despite of giving opportunities, so case proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which are on record.

We have heard complainant and perused the evidences on record. It was evident that the said mobile was purchased on 10/10/2014 and had one year standard warranty. As per the facts of the case, we do not found any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OP1 as seller, so there was no liability on them.

On scrutinizing the services of OP2 and alleged allegations touch screen defect occurred by OP2, no evidence was put on record. it was evident by the facts of the complaint that touch screen defects were occurring repeatedly and OP2 was repairing also. Complainant was paying for repair as he knew that the said defects were of external as physical damages which were due to mishandling of said mobile and does not cover the warranty conditions. As far as other defects were concerned, OP2 rectified the defects and timely returned the mobile.  

Though the complainant has not put any evidence of payment for repair of physical damages on record which occurred twice earlier.  There was one job sheet vide Ex CW1/2 where problems were mentioned due to damage of touch screen and estimated amount was not paid by complainant, so the same mobile was lying with OP2.

It is to be seen that if manufacturing defect were present at the time of purchase then complainant had not used his mobile for over ten months. This clearly proves that the said mobile had no manufacturing defect. Hence the liability of OP3 does not require. As far as services given by OP2 are concern, no deficiency was seen and also no evidence of unfair trade practice evident in his complaint.  

As per terms and condition of HTC mobile, OP2 had to return the mobile without repair, if complainant was not ready to pay, but neither estimated repair cost of damage of touch screen was paid nor took his mobile back from OP2, hence no deficiency in their service of OP2 was evident.

Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint is devoid of any merit so deserve to be dismissed with the direction to complainant to collect his mobile from OP2 and if physical damages are pending, then he will pay the charges of the products to be replaced if required to be replaced with service charges of OP2 as per OP3 conditions. No further order to cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari   Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                 

                                      

                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh - President