DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 340 of 5.9.2016
Decided on: 21.6.2017
Karnail Singh Mandaar son of Sh.Joginder Singh, resident of House No.2663, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala ( Mobile No.94171-49193)
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. HTC Customer Services at TVS Electronic Ltd., South Phase-7A, 2nd Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600032.
2. Image Services, Shop No.74-75, Chhoti Baradari, Near Roop Gas Services, Patiala through Manager Rohit Bansal.
3. Wadhwa Electronics, Opp. P.S.Division No.4, Near Bus Stand, Patiala through its Prop.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Harnavinderjit Singh, Advocate with complainant.
Opposite parties No.1&3 ex-parte.
Sh.Mayank Malhotra,Advocate,
counsel for opposite party No.2
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant had purchased one HTC desire 616 mobile phone from Op No.3 vide bill No.1490 dated 12.10.2014. It is averred that on 18.4.2016, the said mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant approached OP no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company and deposited the same with it and Ms.Sunita who is the Customer care Executive, retained the mobile phone for upgrading the software of the mobile phone so that the mobile phone might work properly. It is averred that at the time o handing over the mobile phone to OP no.2, the mobile phone was in working condition. After a few days when the complainant went to collect the mobile phone, Ms.Sunita told the complainant that the software of the mobile phone could not be upgraded despite trying so many times. The complainant has further averred that the mobile phone of the complainant was damaged by Op no.2 and it also stole the vital parts of the mobile phone. Due to aforesaid act of OP no.2, the complainant suffered mentally as well as physically and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act)1986 praying for the payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses along with a sum of Rs.16,800/- i.e. the cost of the mobile phone and along with any other relief, the court may deem fit.
- On notice, Op no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Op no.3 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint and the only plea taken by Op No.3 is that it is merely a seller as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on its part. Hence the complaint against Op no.3 is liable to be dismissed. After filing written statement OP no.3 did not appear and was ultimately proceeded against exparte. Op no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. OP no.2 clearly submitted that the mobile phone in question was purchased in the year 2014 and the complainant used the same for two years. On 18th April, 2016, the complainant approached Op no.2 with software issue and Op no.2 updated the software in the mobile phone. It is further submitted that since the problem was not related to the software rather it pertained to other hardware problem, OP no.2 told the complainant that the mobile phone was required to be sent to Gurgaon Head Office for repair but the complainant denied for the same was the cost of the hardware was more than the software and he asked the OP no.2 to resolve the matter by only rectifying software problem which was not possible as the service centre had tried it three times. It is further submitted that the complainant left the mobile phone with the service centre and thereafter he did not turn up to take back the mobile phone. The complainant forced the Op to rectify the problem F.O.C. which the service centre clearly told the complainant that as the mobile phone is out of warranty, the repair will be done on chargeable basis. Considering the inconvenience of the complainant, OP no.2 offered ‘New Box Pack’ upgraded model ‘HTC Desire 620’(SN-LC4FY 645400), which the complainant refused to accept the same. OP no.2 did its best to satisfy the complainant even after two years of purchase, therefore, it has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit,Ex.CB sworn affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh alongwith other documents Exs.C1 to C7 and his counsel closed the evidence.
Whereas ld. counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Rohit Bansal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & Ex.OP2 and closed his evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 12.10.2014.After using the mobile phone for 18 months (after the expiry of the warranty) the mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2. The complainant has not placed on record any job sheet so as to prove the problem in the mobile phone whereas Op no.2 has placed on record the job sheet i.e. Ex.OP1, which shows the ‘problem’ in the mobile phone as ‘Auto Power on/off or fail to wake up’ which shows that mobile phone was dead. ‘Qutation status’ is shown as ‘Rejected by CP mail user’. Today, during the course of arguments also, ld. counsel for Op no.2 argued that the mobile phone was received by it in ‘dead’ condition and it was irreparable. Op no.2 had clearly told the complainant that the mobile phone was irreparable but the complainant left the mobile phone with it and did not come to take back the mobile phone. OP No.2 sent the mobile phone to OP no.1 i.e. the manufacturer but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified as it was irreparable. Counsel for Op no.2 further argued that as the mobile phone is lying with OP No.1 in the same condition i.e. ‘dead’ as it was received from the complainant and it is ready to return the mobile phone of the complainant as the defect is irreparable. The mobile phone is also out of warranty and the OPs are not at all liable to repair or replace the same. As a goodwill gesture, OP no.2 offered one mobile phone to the complainant which the complainant refused to accept. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose off the complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to take the mobile phone offered by Op no.2 if he wants to. If the complainant does not turn up to take the mobile phone as offered by Op no.2 within 15 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the OP no.2 shall return the mobile phone in question to the complainant in the same condition in which it was received by it as per the job sheet i.e. Ex.OP1, within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:21.6.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
