GAURAV filed a consumer case on 17 Nov 2016 against HTC in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/195/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Apr 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 195/2015
Date of Institution 20/03/2015
Order reserved on 17/11/2016
Date of Order 18/11/2016
In matter of
Gaurav Massey, Adult
R/o 6/7, IInd Floor, East Baldev Park Part II
Nr Madras Café, Parwana Road,
Delhi 110092…………………………..…..…….…..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The New Mobile Mart
R 52, Nr Metro Pillar 44,
Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092
2- HTC Service Centre
Office no.- 201, 2nd Floor
Sagar Plaza District Centre
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092
3-HTC
Office –G 4, BPTP Park Avenue,
Sec 30, Near NH 8,
Gurgaon 122002.….………..………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant …………………………In person
Opponent ………………………….Ex Parte
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 mobile model no. HTC-Desire 816 on 08/07/2014 for Rs 25,900/ from OP1 vide IMEI 352795061103874. The said mobile developed problem as failed to detect SIM 1 and got switched off automatically and no call was connecting. So, complainant deposited the mobile with OP2 for repair on 05/01/2015. It was assured by OP2 to return the mobile after seven days vide job sheet no. DEL 0220008568 marked here as CW1/2.
It was told by OP2 that problem was rectified. After some days again, the same problem occurred and was again deposited with OP2, but the problem was not rectified vide job sheet no DEL0220010090 dated 11/02/2015 marked here as CW1/2. Even after visiting OP2, neither problem was rectified nor the phone was returned to complainant.
Despite of sending repeat emails to OP3, no action was taken. Hence, he filed this complaint claiming refund of mobile cost Rs 25,900/ with harassment charges Rs 50,000/ and litigation charges Rs 10,000/.
Notices were served, but none appeared or submitted written statement or evidences. Number of times, opportunity was given, but OPs neither appeared nor filed evidences or participated in arguments. Case was proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which are on record.
We have heard complainant and perused the evidences placed on record. From the evidence that the said mobile was purchased on 08/07/2014 and was under standard warranty for one year. OP2 has not provided its services under warranty period properly as defects were existing even on the second service also; not only this, OP2 kept delaying in performing their required services and kept mobile with himself. This clearly shows that OP2’ s services were deficient.
In the view of above findings, the complaint is accepted and following order is passed as under—
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to Record Room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member (Dr) P N Tiwari Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.