Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/481

kanwardeep kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C.No:481 of 11.07.2014

                                                                    Date of Decision:28.01.2015

Dr.Kanwardeep Kaur 74 Model Gram, Near Kochar Market, Ludhiana, Punjab.

Complainant

Versus 

1.The Manager, HTC Service Centre, 17 AX Ground Floor, Model Town, Opposite Andhra Bank, Ludhiana-Punjab-141001.

2.The Managing Director, HTC India. Unit No.4, Ground Floor, BPTP Park Centre, NH-8, Sector 30, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

                   Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Complainant Dr.Kanwardeep Kaur in person.

Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Technician and Sh.Rohit Bansal,  representatives for Ops.

                          ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Complainant Dr.Kanwardeep Kaur, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after referred to as ‘the Act’) against The Manager, HTC Service Centre, 17 AX Ground Floor, Model Town, Opposite Andhra Bank, Ludhiana and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to refund the entire amount of Rs.43,500/- besides Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by her and Rs.1000/- towards costs of petition and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased an HTC one M7 Smart-phone having IMEI No.354435051871291 on July 16^, 2013 for a sum of Rs.43,500/-. The phone had developed certain complications like pink tint in camera, slow speed and low battery backup, every early on just after its purchase after which on March13, 2014 it was submitted at the office of OP1, who is the authorized service centre of OP2. The complainant was delivered back the mobile phone by OP1 after a week as per assurance already provided, but the complainant was astonished to see that problem persisted and therefore, the complainant had to submit back the mobile phone for a second time to the OP1 with the request of escalating her grievance to the head office and finding permanent solution for the same. Although, it was later revealed that the OP1 had been acting negligently and the mobile phone was never sent to the head office or service station. Thereafter, the complainant made numerous approaches with the OP1 and ultimately, on 27.3.2014 the complainant was informed that her mobile phone was still at the service centre of OP1 and no job sheet had been made. It was only after consistent efforts, repeated requests and arguments by the complainant that the Op1 provided her with another job sheet. The complainant received back the phone after 10 days with the same old problems. Complainant again submitted the mobile phone and so on April 7, 2014 a third job sheet was made. Thereafter, the complainant was provided with a replacement of the faulty mobile phone on May 22, 2014 but again reiterating back to their unprofessional behaviour, it was found that the new replaced mobile phone had a faulty mic and the device would start up and shut down on its own. On asking for a brand new phone instead of repaired/replaced phone, the Ops blatantly ignored the request of the complainant. The complainant has been defrauded by the Ops by unprofessional and negligent alongwith the faulty products. The complainant had also sent a letter dated 30.5.2014 to the Ops seeking assistance to get the grievance resolved amicably but with no result. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their representative Sh.Rohit Bansal and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted that they had been assisting the customer every time when she notified about the problem in the device. Customer bought the device on 16.7.2013 for Rs.43,500/- and after using the device for approximately 9 months, the customer notified their service centre that she has been facing camera ,low battery backup and device freezing issue in the device on 13.3.2014. They assisted the customer by repairing the device and they replaced the camera, battery and mic in the device and handed it over back to her on 27.3.2014. On 28.3.2014, the customer contacted their service centre again mentioning that the camera issue continues. The answering Ops at their service centre performed a ROM flash on the device and handed over the device back to the customer on 5.4.2014. On 7.4.2014, the customer again contacted their service centre mentioning that the camera issue in the device. The answering Ops at their service centre performed a ROM flash on the device and handed over the device back to the customer on 26.4.2014. On 28.4.2014, the customer contacted their service centre again mentioning the camera issue in the device. The answering Ops at their service centre considering repeated issue of camera, replaced the camera again in order to assist the customer and handed over the device back to the customer on 7.5.2014. On 8.5.2014, the customer contacted their service centre again mentioning Auto Power of and Mic issue in the device. Consider special gesture and repeated repairs from the customer, they took special approval and replaced the device for the customer and handed over the replacement device to the customer on 23.5.2014. Customer’s original device Sr.No.was FA35WW917873 and IMEI No.354435051871291(HTC One) and the replaced device Sr.No.HT43HW0A0015 and IMEI No.353540065003848(HTC One). After that there was no visit of the customer at the service centre nor the customer contacted their technical support for assistance and made a legal complaint. They never denied assistance to the customer and always tried their best to assist the customer. The demand raised by the complainant is specifically denied. Further, it has been submitted that the answering Ops are still assisting the customer by providing the customer same device replacement again as she is considering the problem in her replaced device, however, customer rejected the offer. Considering the inconvenience caused to her, they are offering her Model Upgrade from HTC One to HTC One Dual Sim, and the warranty of customer’s device is already expired and they are offering her 6 months warranty on replaced device but the customer still rejected the offer and demanded HTC M8 which is one of the latest device and is of higher price range and configuration and the said demand is not ethical and beyond their scope of support. At the end, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Forum ask the customer to accept the offer of Model Upgrade to HTC One Dual Sim with 6 months warranty.

4.                Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavit and documents in support of their pleadings.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as representatives for the OPs and have also perused the documents on record very carefully.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question i.e. HTC One M7 Smart-phone on 16.7.2013 for a sum of Rs.43,500/- which fact is evident from copy of document Ex.A copy of retail invoice dated 16.7.2013 issued by Digitallife. Further, it is an admitted fact that mobile set in question purchased by the complainant was suffering from certain defects, as a result of which, the complainant had approached the service centre of Ops many times and ultimately, replacement of the mobile set was given to the complainant.

7.                As per the allegations of the complainant that the complainant was provided with a replacement of the faulty mobile phone on May 22, 2014 but again reiterating back to their unprofessional behavior, it was found that the new replaced mobile phone had a faulty mic and the device would start up and shut down on its own and on asking for a brand new phone instead of repaired/replaced phone, the Ops blatantly ignored the request of the complainant.

8.                Perusal of the written reply which has been tendered in evidence by the Ops reveals that Ops have not denied the fact qua the purchase of the mobile set and replacement of the mobile set given to the complainant by the Ops. Rather, it has categorically submitted that they had made offer of Model Upgrade from HTC One to HTC One Dual Sim alongwith 6 months warranty on replaced device but the customer still rejected the offer.

9.                During the course of arguments, representatives of the Ops have categorically made the offer for the replacement of the mobile set in question of the complainant with new sealed mobile set of the same make and model without any costs. However, the complainant insisted for grant of compensation on account of deficiency in service provided by the Ops.

10.              No doubt, earlier the mobile set of the complainant was replaced by the Ops but the same was also found faulty, which proves that the Ops are deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled for the compensation for such act and conduct on the part of the Ops.

11.             In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to provide the new sealed mobile set to the complainant of the same make and model without any costs and if the same make and model of the mobile set is not available with them, in that eventuality, to make refund of the entire amount of the mobile set of the complainant to the tune of Rs.43,500/-.  Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.4000/-(Four thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

                     (Sat Paul Garg)                      (R.L. Ahuja)

                        Member                               President

Announced in Open Forum

on 28.01.2015

GurpreetSharma