Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/16/2018

JAGMOHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH SINGH

03 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No             335/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution    11-12-2017

 Date of Decision         20-02-2018

 

 

Jagmohan Singh,

S/O S.Bhupinder Singh,

R/O H,.No.587,Sector 3,

Ext.Bhawani Vihar Trikuta Nagar,

Jammu.

                                                                                    Complainant

                          V/S

1.HTC India Pvt.ltd.G-.4,

   BPTP Park Centre, Sec.30

    NH-8 Gurgaon 122001 Haryana.

  

2. Shivom Enterprises,Ward No.21,

    556-A Gandhi Nagar,Jammu,

    Through its Proprietor.

3.Cell Shell 430,J.M.C.Main Road,

   High Court,Janipur,Jammu.

                                                                                

                                                                                   Opposite parties

CORAM                 

 

Khalil Choudhary    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                      Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Member

                      Mr.Ghulam Sarwar  Chauhan                              Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Mukesh Singh, Advocate for Complainant present .

 Nemo for  OPs.

 

ORDER.

 

            Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that; complainant purchased a HTC Desire 10 Pro Volte Polar White handset having IMEI No.352752080114234, for an amount of Rs.26,000/-on,13-04-2017 from OP3 who is authorized dealer of OP1( Annexure-A).According to complainant, after few months from the purchase, the handset started giving problem in its working particularly the handset gets automatically switched off with network problem and one sim not reachable and get excessive heat up, complainant approached OP3,who firstly tried to escape from the responsibility, but after pressing hard, complainant was asked to approach OP2 for removal of defects in the handset. Complainant further submitted that since the handset purchased by complainant was well within warranty period,therefore,complainant approached OP2 immediately after its purchase and requested OP2 to remove the defects in the handset, the OP2 firstly reluctant to prepare the job sheet despite the fact that the said handset was well within warranty period, but after repeated request,OP2 prepared the job sheet and thereafter the handset was retained by OP2 for removal of defects. It is pertinent to mention here that since the OP2 was having its service centre at Jammu, but despite of it the handset was not repaired at Jammu and it was sent by courier to other service centre which was operating out of J&K State  thereby causing harassment to the complainant, Moreover OP2 after a lapse of more than 2 weeks has contacted complainant and assured him that the defects in the handset have been removed and there will be no problem in the handset in future, but to the utter dismay of complainant,OP2 flatly refused to issue Xerox copy of job card. Complainant further submitted that since few days have not been passed ,the handset again started showing the same manufacturing defects which were erupted right from the beginning of its purchase and despite of the fact that the handset was being retained by OP2 for more than two weeks,but OP2 by showing deficiency in service did not remove the defects.Thereafter complainant again approached OP2 and requested OP2 for removing the defects in the handset or for the replacement of handset,but the Ops neither removed  manufacturing defects nor replaced the handset.Complaint further proceeds on the premise that Ops failed to redress his grievance,therefore,same amounts to deficiency in service and un fair trade practice. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.26,000/- and in addition, prays for compensation of Rs.60, 000/-including litigation charges.

                     Notices were sent to the Ops alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but Ops , did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act,therefore,their right to file written version was closed by this Forum vide order dated,02-02-2018.

                  However,Op2 caused appearance on,15-02-2016 i.e.after expiry of statutory period of 45 days,therefore,same was also not taken on record.             

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Gagan Sharma and Kapil Singh,respectively.Complainant has placed on record copy of invoice dated,13-04-2017 and copy of job card.

                We have perused record and heard L/C appearing for complainant at length.

                 Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that he purchased a HTC Desire 10 Pro Volte Polar White handset having IMEI No.352752080114234, for an amount of Rs.26,000/-on,13-04-2017 from OP3 who is authorized dealer of OP1.According to complainant, after few months from the purchase, the handset started giving problem in its working particularly the handset gets automatically switched off with network problem and one sim not reachable and get excessive heat up, complainant approached OP3,who firstly tried to escape from the responsibility, but after pressing hard, complainant was asked to approach OP2 for removal of defects in the handset. Complainant further submitted that since the handset purchased by complainant was well within warranty period,therefore,complainant approached OP2 immediately after its purchase and requested OP2 to remove the defects in the handset, the OP2 firstly reluctant to prepare the job sheet despite the fact that the said handset was well within warranty period, but after repeated request,OP2 prepared the job sheet and thereafter the handset was retained by OP2 for removal of defects. It is pertinent to mention here that since the OP2 was having its service centre at Jammu, but despite of it the handset was not repaired at Jammu and it was sent by courier to other service centre which was operating out of J&K State  thereby causing harassment to the complainant, Moreover OP2 after a lapse of more than 2 weeks has contacted complainant and assured him that the defects in the handset have been removed and there will be no problem in the handset in future, but to the utter dismay of complainant,OP2 flatly refused to issue Xerox copy of job card. Complainant further submitted that since few days have not been passed ,the handset again started showing the same manufacturing defects which were erupted right from the beginning of its purchase and despite of the fact that the handset was being retained by OP2 for more than two weeks, but OP2 by showing deficiency in service did not remove the defects. Thereafter complainant again approached OP2 and requested OP2 for removing the defects in the handset or for the replacement of handset, but the Ops neither removed manufacturing defects nor replaced the handset. Complaint further proceeds on the premise that Ops failed to redress his grievance,therefore,same amounts to deficiency in service and un fair trade practice.

 

                        From perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own affidavit and affidavits of Gagan Sharma and Kapil Singh,respectively so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of documentary evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments contained in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notices, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent their case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs  omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the Ops omits or fails to taken any action to represent the case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

 

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to refund cost of handset,i.e.Rs.26,000/- to complainant, who shall return the handset alongwith accessories to Ops. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-The Ops  shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. Complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

 

Order per President                                     Khalil Choudhary

                                                               (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                      President

Announced                                            District Consumer Forum

20-02-2018                                                    Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

    Ms.Vijay Angral          

     Member   

 

    Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

    Member