Delhi

East Delhi

CC/44/2018

SAJAL JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2019

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. 44/18

 

Shri Sajal Jain

S/o Shri Sunil Jain

R/o C-182, Anand Vihar,

Delhi- 110092

•  

Vs

1. M/s HTC India Pvt. Ltd.

G-4, BPTP Park Avenue,

Sector-30, Gurgaon- 122002

 

2. M/s TVS Electronics Ltd.

Ground Floor, K-1/79,

Chittranjan Park,

New Delhi- 1100019

 

                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 05.02.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 02.12.2019

Judgment Passed on: 02.12.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sajal Jain, the complainant, against M/s HTC India Pvt. Ltd., (OP-1), the manufacturer and M/s TVS Electronic Ltd., (OP-2), the Authorized Service Centre with the prayer for directions to OP to pay Rs. 51,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum since 15.09.2017 being the cost of the handset; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain agony and harassment.  

Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased one HTC U11 Brilliant Black Mobile Phone from the Authorised Dealer of OP-1 i.e. Beechams Press Pvt. Ltd. for which invoice dated 03.08.2017 was issued for                       Rs. 51,000/-. It has been stated by the complainant that he was influenced by the stylish body as well as advertisements stating the handset to be water resistant.

It has been further stated by the complainant that on 15.09.2017, the complainant was listening to music and talking to his friends while taking shower in his bathroom thereby believing the assertions made by OP in their promotions and advertisements where it was stated to be water resistant. The complainant has also stated that he was shocked to find that the display and touch panel of the handset were not working properly,  after little contact with the water in shower for around 15 minutes.

The complainant approached the authorized service centre of OP-1, where on 21.09.2017, he was informed that the handset was physically damaged and certain parts needed to be replaced for which estimated cost of repairs was Rs. 46,401/-. It has been stated by the complainant that OPs have deceived by manufacturing and selling an inferior quality product and making false claim assertions of it being water resistant.

Legal notice dated 01.11.2017 was served upon OPs demanding                Rs. 51,000/- alongwith late payment interest @12% per annum from 15.09.2010 till realization. The reply dated 06.11.2017 was received by the complainant where it was stated that water resistant did not mean that water could never get into the device. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of OP, hence, the present complaint.

The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 03.08.2017, service job sheet 15.09.2017, retait tax invoice, proforma estimation/ quotation dated 21.09.2017, legal notice dated 01.11.2017, alongwith postal receipts, reply to the Legal Notice dated 06.11.2017, printouts pertaining to advertisements of HTC U11 and IP67 details alongwith the complaint.

Notice of the present complainant was served upon OPs.

Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the complaint was devoid of merits. It was submitted that the complainant himself has stated that the phone got damaged while he was using it in shower. It was submitted that categorization of the handset as water resistant was subject to certain basic conditions beyond which the manufacturer was not responsible. Water resistant did not meant that water could never get into the device. They have stated that as per Oxford English dictionary: Water resistant: able to resist water penetration to some degree but not entirely, therefore, the complainant was negligent in using the handset.

It was further submitted that as per the website for HTC U11, the handset must not be exposed to non fresh water, high water pressure, strong or fast moving water, or sand since, these may cause overheating, electric shock or damage to the phone. Do not attempt to charge or otherwise use a USB port when HTC U11 is wet. Normal wear and tear may decrease the water and dust resistance over time. Warranty will be void if the phone is not used in accordance with the instructions and precautions addressed in the user guide, including, but not limited to using the phone in environments or situation that exceed the limitation of the IP67 rating. Rest of the contents have also been denied. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint as the damage was due to the negligence of the complainant.

In replication to the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP-1 and             OP-2, the complainant has denied the submission made by them and has  re-affirmed  the averment made in the complaint.

Complainant has got examined himself and has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of invoice                           of HTC U11 as Ex.CW1/1, service job sheet dated 15.09.2017 as Ex.CW1/2, retail invoice dated 21.09.2017 as Ex.CW1/3, copy of Legal Notice dated 01.11.2017 alongwith postal receipts as Ex.CW1/4 (Colly.), copy of reply of Legal Notice as Ex.CW1/5, copy of photographs of advertisement of mobile HTC U11 with other advertisements claiming it to be water resistant as Ex.CW1/6, detail of IP67 as Ex.CW1/7, and ID proof of complainant as Ex.CW1/8.

OP chose not to file their evidence by way of affidavit and subsequently they stopped appearing, hence they were proceeded                  ex-parte.

We have heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for Complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The grievance of the complainant is that he was given an estimate of                 Rs. 46,401/- by OP, whereas the handset was under warranty and proclaimed to be water resistant. If we look at Ex.CW1/2: which is service job sheet dated 15.09.2017, which bears liquid damage against the column coverage rejection reason. The complainant has stated that the handset purchased by him was proclaimed to be water resistant as per advertisements and assertions made by OP. If we look at the features of HTC U11 as mentioned on www.htc.com, it bears HTC U11 has an IP67 rating and is dust, splash and water resistance up to 1 meter of freshwater for up to 30 minutes and tested under controlled laboratory conditions. Normal wear and tear may decrease water and water resistance over time. Do not attempt to charge or otherwise use the USB type C port on a wet HTC U11. For drying instructions and tips on maintaining water resistance, consult the user guide, support site or the help app on the device. Liquid damage may not be covered under warranty.

The handset is stated to have IP67 rating, which means:

“Ingress Protection which is a system where the classification of the system is shown with respect to the degree of protection from solid objects and liquids. The First number refers to protection against solid objects, ranging from 0 to 6. Where the number 0 implies no protection and number 6 is for total protection against dust. The second number of IP rating refers to protection against liquids. Where number 0 indicates no protection while number 7 refers to protection against immersion between 15 cm and 1 meter.”

 Therefore, the handset was proclaimed to be dust and liquid resistant. When the handset was claimed to be water resistant then making the warranty void with the reason “Liquid damage” is an arbitrary act of OP.

Thus from the above discussion it is observed that the handset was under warranty and the complainant was entitled to get it repaired free of cost. Since, OP has wrongfully made the warranty void this amounts to deficiency in services. The act of OP also amounts to unfair trade practice as they had through various advertisements and assertions made misleading representation regarding the handset being water resistant.

Since, OPs did not file their evidence and have been proceeded             ex-parte the averments made by the complainant have remained                  un-rebutted.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP to refund Rs. 51,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We, further award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and agony, this shall be inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order else the awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

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

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President