Haryana

Panchkula

CC/81/2015

NIRDOSH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC PVT.LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

MADHU RANJAN.

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	81 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.08.2015

                                                                                          

Dr. Nirdosh Kumar Bhardwaj Block Medical Officer Sangrah District Simour H.P. 173023.

 

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1. HTC Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director at G-4 BPTP Park Center, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon.
2. Shivam Communication, through its proprietor, Sh. Sudesh Kumar at SCO 38, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

                                                                   …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr. Madhu Ranjan, Advocate for the complainant.

OPs already exparte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a HTC Desire 210 dual sim IMEI No. 353131062910621 mobile phone from Ajay Enterprises Booth No. 11, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana on 29.07.2014 vide bill dated 29.07.2014 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.7600/-. As per guarantee card, the said mobile phone had the guarantee of 12 months from the date of purchase (Annexure C-2). On 30.08.2014, the complainant visited the OP No.2 for repair as the complainant faced some technical problems in his phone. The job card (Annexure C-3) which was issued to the complainant itself saying that the mobile phone is within warranty period and it was also mentioned that “Touch Panel function abnormally: touch not working” and the condition of phone also shown good. After 10 days, complainant went to OP no. 2 to collect the said mobile. The OP no. 2 told the complainant that the mobile spoiled by water and did not come under warranty.  The OP no. 2 asked to the complainant to pay Rs. 5000/- for repair of the mobile. The complainant sent legal notice (Annexure C-4) dated 26.09.2014 to the Ops and the Ops sent the reply stating that “As per our telephonic conversation, I understand that you are facing “Touch Panel function abnormally” issue with the device, and the quotation amount also to raised which is 4823/- INR. We apologize for the inconvenience that you are facing with your device. In this regard, we would like to inform you that we can offer 20% discount on all the repairing charges”. The complainant again sent the second reminder through various emails (Annexure C-6 and C-6 Colly).  The complainant had to purchase a new mobile phone by spending Rs. 11,800/-.  This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs through speed post  and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7  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 210 dual sim IMEI No. 353131062910621 mobile phone (Annexure C-1) from Ajay Enterprises Booth No. 11, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana on 29.07.2014.  The mobile was within the guarantee (Annexure C-2) period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile. After few months, complainant faced some technical problem in the phone and submitted the mobile phone to OP no. 2. In the job card (Annexure C-3), it is mentioned that the mobile is within warranty period and the remark is that “Touch Not Working”. After cosmetic inspection, set was found in good condition. When the complainant visited the OP no. 2 to collect the said mobile, the OP no. 2 told that the mobile was spoiled by water and it did not come under warranty.  OP no. 2 asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5000/- for repair of the mobile. After that complainant sent the legal notice (Annexure C-4) dated 26.09.2014 and Ops replied vide email dated 01.10.2014 stating that “As per our telephonic conversation, I understand that you are facing “Touch Panel function abnormally” issue with the device, and the quotation amount also to raised which is 4823/- INR. We apologize for the inconvenience that you are facing with your device. In this regard, we would like to inform you that we can offer 20% discount on all the repairing charges”. The complainant vide his letter dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure C-6) requested the Ops to refund the cost of HTC defective set.  The complainant had to purchase a new mobile phone (Annexure C-7) by spending Rs. 11,800/-. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. Moreover, the OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.
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.7600/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay Rs.5000/- as 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

04.08.2015                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                 

                                                                   DHARAM PAL

                                                                    PRESIDENT