Delhi

East Delhi

CC/368/2017

AJAY GAHLOT - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 368/17

 

Shri Ajay Gahlot

R/o J-13, Laxmi Nagar

New Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. TVS Electronics Ltd.

Off.: EDM Mall, 1^st Floor

Plot No. 1, Kaushambi

Ghaziabad – 201 010      

 

2. M/s. H.T.C. India Pvt. Ltd.

G. 4, BPTP Park Centre

Sector-30, Near N.H. 8

Gurgaon – 122 001                                                         …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 01.09.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 05.09.2019

Judgement Passed on: 11.09.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ajay Gahlot against M/s. TVS Electronics Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Lenovo mobile set, model no. HTC Desire 816 G from OP on 01.01.2015 vide invoice no. 1050 for an amount of Rs. 20,490/-. 

It was stated that on 10.05.2015 (wrongly mentioned as 10.05.2016), the mobile was creating problem as “system hang under os”.  The mobile was repaired by OP vide job sheet no. DEL 022 0025162 dated 10.05.2015. The complainant was assured that in future, he will not face any problem, but on 24.08.2015, the complainant again faced the same problem.  He deposited the phone with OP vide job sheet no. DEL 022 0022388 and got it repaired. 

.           It was further stated that on 09.08.2016, the phone was deposited with OP with the problem “charging problem, some display getting white” vide job sheet no. QWS 16080900033 dated 09.08.2016.  It was stated that the conduct of OP was illegal, uncalled, unwarranted and against the natural justice.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs. 20,490/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation. 

3.         In reply filed on behalf of OP-1 & 2, they have stated that the complainant purchased the mobile on 01.01.2015 and filed the complaint in the end of 2017.  The period of warranty for the handset was only one year from the date of invoice.  The complainant deposited the mobile for repair on 09.08.2016 (wrongly mentioned 09.08.2017) i.e. after the warranty period.  The service centre advised the complainant to pay for the service charges as per the terms and conditions of warranty, but the complainant approached the Hon’ble Forum for refund and compensation.  Other facts have also been denied.          

4.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint. 

            OPs did not file any evidence and even during the course of proceedings, they stopped appearing.  Hence, they were proceeded        ex-parte. 

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant, Ld. Counsel for OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record.  From the evidence of complainant such as service reports which have been filed by the complainant, it is noticed that complainant availed the services of service centre on 10.05.2015 and 24.08.2015, when the handset was under warranty.  The handset was repaired and handed over to the complainant.  He again availed the service of service centre on 0-9.08.2016 after a period of one year when the handset was out of warranty.  Though, the handset was got repaired after a period of one year, but the symptoms almost remained the same such as charging, on and off and display problem.  The fact that handset was having same problem, though, it was out of warranty certainly, it seems that it was having some manufacturing defect.  Even OP-1 & OP-2 have stopped appearing to contest the complaint.  When they have not contested the complaint, certainly, the testimony of complainant which has gone unrebutted have to be relied upon.  Therefore, there has been deficiency on the part of OP-1 & 2. 

The complainant having used the mobile over a period of one year, it would be in the fittest of things if the complainant is awarded the cost of the mobile keeping in mind that fact.  Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of mobile and Rs. 5,000/- compensation on account of mental pain and agony which includes the cost of litigation which be paid by OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the order.  If not paid the total amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of order. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                         (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                     President