DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92
CC No.56/2014:
In the matter of:
Sh. Yatender
R/o.H.No.36,Ghond Mojpur,
Delhi
Complainant
Vs
M/s. Digitek Computer Pvt. Ltd.
Off.: C-6/ 232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi – 110 053
HTC Care
Off.: 201, 2nd Floor, Sagar Plaza,
District Centre Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi – 110 092
HTC
G 4 BPTP, Park Centre,
Sec. 30, Near NH 8,
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001
Respondents
Date of Admission – 24/01/2014
Date of Order - 16/03/2015
ORDER
Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:
The present complaint has been filed with the allegation that on c the complainant purchased a HTC Mobile handset, Model Desire V, IMEI No.352795056251472 from Respondent No.I for Rs.16,000/- vide Invoice No. 98771. It is alleged that right from day one of its purchase the handset was defective and problems of network and hanging. On 10/01/2013 the complainant submitted the handset to Respondent No.II vide Job Sheet No.DEL 004 - 0006624 who assured to repair it within seven days. Despite repeated visits the Respondent No.II failed to repair the handset. It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs. 16,000/- the cost of the mobile handset together with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 15,500/- as the cost of litigation.
Notices were issued to the respondents. Despite service none put up appearance. Case proceeded exparte against all of them.
No 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 the complainant purchased a HTC Mobile handset Model Desire V bearing IMEI No. 352795056251472 from Respondent No. I, vide Invoice No. 98771, on 21/12/2012 for Rs.16,000/-. It is evident from the Job Sheet No.DEL 004 – 0006624 filed on record by the complainant that on 10/01/2013 the said handset was submitted by him for the rectification of network and hanging problems 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 right 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 was obligatory on the part of the Respondent No.II to remove the defects that had arisen in the product during the warranty period and Respondent No.III was under an obligation to replace the said handset /refund its cost in case after receiving the said handset for repairs they arrive at an inference that the defects reported by the complainant are beyond repairs.
It is significant to mention here that Respondent No.II was under an obligation to forward the case of the complainant to the manufacturer, the Respondent No.III herein, for 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 came to the conclusion that the same were beyond repairs. Infact, it is Respondent No.II, the Authorized Service Centre of Respondent No.III, who had thrust upon the complainant the burden of this unwanted litigation. Had it taken 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 have been burdened and harassed to file the present complaint for seeking redressal of his grievance. The Forums are receiving 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 and are indulging in malpractices thereby causing harassment to the consumers and forcing them to take legal recourse and thereby burdening the judicial system. The mobile manufacturing companies need to keep a strict check on their functioning so that the complaints of the consumers are redressed in a satisfactory manner.
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 respondents deficient in providing service to the complainant. We direct the Respondent No.III to refund Rs.16,000/-, the cost of the mobile handset together with Rs.3,000/- as compensation for depriving the complainant from using the 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 on the anti– consumer activities thriving within the corporate sector which is forcing the consumers who had fallen prey their said activities to take legal recourse under the System of Consumer Redressal besides putting some extra burden on the Consumer Redressal Mechanism. We, further, direct Respondent No.II to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant for the deficient services provided by it to the complainant.
Let the order be complied with by the Respondent Nos.II and III as directed above within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a over the entire amount so awarded to him till it is finally paid.
Copies of the order may be supplied to the parties as per rules.
(Poonam Malhotra) (N.A.Zaidi) Member President |
