Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1108/2014

RAMEEZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

 

CC No. 1108/2014:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rameez Suhail

S/o. Sh.Suhail Akhter

R/o. Plot No.B – 5, 6, H.No.204,

Gurudwara Road, Mandawali,

Fazalpur, Delhi – 110 092

Complainant

Vs

1.         New Star Communication

                      103/3, Gurudwara Dera Baba Karam Singh,

                      Sahib Rashid Market,

                      Patparganj Road, Delhi – 110 051

         

          2.         Satyam Communication

                       J-34 (Basement), Near Centre State Mall,

                      Sector – 18, Noida U.P. – 201 301

 

          3.         HTC               

                      G – 4, BPTP Park Centre,

                      Sector - 30, Near NH - 8,

                      Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001

Respondents

 

 

Date of Admission : 19/12/2014

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 21/04/2015

ORDER

 

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

            The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 03/05/2014 the complainant purchased  a new HTC Mobile Phone handset Model HTC One (M8), IMEI No.352090060313637 for a sum of Rs.49,000/-vide Invoice No. 954 from Respondent No.I.  From the very first day the mobile handset was giving problem viz., Phone vibrates continuously when switched off/no Power On / Software not accepted.  On 10/08/2014 the handset in question was deposited by the complainant at the Authorized Service Centre of Respondent No.II vide Job Sheet No.DEL021-0007945 and the complainant alleges to have been assured by the Respondent No.II that it would be repaired within seven days thereof.  Despite several visits the Respondent No.II has failed to repair the handset in question. It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.49,000/-, the cost of the  handset with interest, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation. 

 

            In reply to the notices issued to the respondents none put up appearance and case proceeded exparte against them.

 

            Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

 

            Heard the complainant and perused the record.

 

It is not in dispute that on 03/05/2014 the complainant purchased a HTC Mobile handset Model HTC One (M8), IMEI No.352090060313637 for a sum of Rs.49,000/-vide Invoice No. 954 from Respondent No.I.  It is evident from the Job Sheet No. DEL021-0007945 dated 10/08/2014 filed on record by the complainant that the said handset was submitted by him for the rectification of defect “Phone vibrates continuously when switched off/no power on /software not accepted” while the said handset was within the warranty period.

 

 It is pertinent to mention here that any manufacturing company offering warranty on its product to its customer is bound to remove the defects that arise in the product during the period of warranty and replacement or refund of the cost thereof in case it is not possible to remove the defects.  If the company does not do so, it is guilty of infringing the rights of the consumer.  The allegation that the respondents have failed to rectify the defects reported by the complainant have since not been controverted by the respondents are taken to be correct and we arrive at an inference that the handset in question is suffering from inherent defects which are beyond repairs.   It is significant to mention here that Respondent No.II was under an obligation to forward the case of the complainant without any delay to the manufacturer, the Respondent No.III herein, with a report recommending replacement of the handset or refund of the cost thereof when after making efforts to rectify the defects reported by the complainant in the handset it had come to the conclusion that the same were beyond repairs.   Infact, it is Respondent No.II, the Authorized Service Centre of Respondent No.III, which had thrust upon the complainant the burden of this unwanted litigation.  Had it taken expeditious steps to channelize the complaint of the complainant to the manufacturer of the handset, the Respondent No.III herein,  for redressal of his  grievance when he first approached it for the rectification of the defects, the complainant would not have been burdened and harassed to approach this Forum to file the present complaint for seeking redressal of his grievance.   It is very significant to mention here that we are receiving a large number of complaints that the executives at the Authorized Service Centres of the Mobile Manufacturing Companies are not attending to the complaints of the consumers, are indulging in malpractices and their behaviour while attending to the consumer complaints is not consumer friendly and all these factors contribute to harassment of the consumers, forcing them to take legal recourse and thereby burdening the judicial system.  The goodwill and reputation of the mobile manufacturing companies is also put at stake by their slipshod behaviour in attending to the consumers approaching them with complaints relating to their mobile phones.  Now-a-days mobile phones have become a basic necessity for every individual without which life seems to come to a standstill and with such a large consumer base this industry has become a lifeline for connecting people with one another.  It is very difficult for a person to stay without a mobile phone even for an hour what to say of days together as in the case in hand and in case it gives any problem then he has to rush to the Authorized Service Centre immediately where he faces gruesome harassment not anticipated by him besides the tension of remaining without a mobile phone. These companies need to keep a strict check on their functioning so that the complaints of the consumers are redressed in a satisfactory manner at the grass root level and the consumers are not forced to encounter persecuting and arduous treatment whenever they approach these service centres for services relating to the mobile phone handsets and thereafter being burdened with unnecessary and strenuous litigation. 

 

Complainant has failed to make out any case against the Respondent No.I.  As such it is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

 

 Taking into consideration the said facts and circumstances and in view of the discussion and observations made supra, we allow the present complaint and hold the Respondent Nos. II & III deficient in providing services to the complainant. We direct the Respondent No.III to refund Rs.49,000/-, the cost of the mobile handset to the complainant  and direct Respondent No.II to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for depriving him from using the said handset and enjoying its services and for the harassment meted out to him and it shall include the cost of this litigation.  This would operate as a deterrent to the anti–consumer activities thriving within the corporate sector forcing the consumers falling prey their said activities to take legal recourse under the System of Consumer Redressal besides putting some extra burden on the Consumer Redressal Mechanism. The complainant shall return the handset/original jobsheet alongwith accessories to the Respondent No.III at the time of receiving the refund amount.

Let the order be complied with by the complainant, Respondent Nos.II and III as directed above within 45 days from the date of the order.  In case the Respondent No.II & III fail to pay to the complainant as per the directions given in the order he shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a over the entire amount so awarded to him from the date of this order till it is finally paid.

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                              (N.A.Zaidi)           Member                                                                                                       President