Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/394

ROHIT JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 08.06.2016

Complaint Case. No.394/16                                                    Date of order: 25.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Rohit Jindal S/O Shri Dharam Pal Jindal R/O H-452, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018                                                                                                                                          Complainant

VERSUS

Super Electronics Pvt. Lmt., 44/2B Krishna Puri, Outer Ring Road, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-18                                                                                                         opposite party no.1

 

HTC Service Center, 1/4 Nazafgarh Road, Tilak Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi-18                                                                                           opposite party no.2

 

HTC India Pvt. Ltd., G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Sec-30, Near NH-08, Gurgaon-122001

                                                                                                                         opposite party no.3

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased  one mobile handset “HTC desire 820” from the opposite party no.1 authorized dealer of  the opposite party no.3 manufacturer on 13.11.2015 vide invoice no. VIKASPURI/398/NOV/2015 for sale consideration of Rs.23,300/-. The mobile handset developed fault after 3-4 months after purchase. The complainant on 25.05.2016 deposited the handset with the opposite party no.2 authorized service center of the opposite party no.3. The mobile handset has manufacturing defect and the opposite party no.2 was unable to repair it and returned the unrepaired mobile handset to the complainant. The opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the mobile handset has many faults due to mishandling of the complainant and several parts has to be replaced which are not covered under the warranty and demanding Rs. 7,000 to 8,000 to repair the handset. Hence the present complaint for directions to the replace the defecting mobile handset with a new one or refund the cost ot the mobile handset and pay Rs.50,000 for mental pain, agony and harassment

            After Notice the opposite party-2 appeared and filed reply to the compliant taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approach the forum with clean hands and concealed material facts. On merits the opposite party no.2 admitted that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 13.11.2015 from the opposite party no.1 for Rs.23,300/- with one year warranty. The  opposite party no.2 alleged that the complainant deposited the mobile handset after six months from the date of purchase. The engineer of the opposite party no.2 returned the device without repairs as their was physical damages in the mobile handset. He further asserted that the complainant should be put to strict proof for the allegations of manufacturing defect. The opposite party no.2 vehemently denied all other allegation of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party no.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.09.2016.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no.2 controverting stand of the opposite party no.2 and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint.

            When the complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit he tendered in his affidavit dated narrating the facts of the complaint and relied upon invoice dated 13.11.2015 and job sheet dated 25.05.2016. The opposite party no.2 failed to file evidence by way of affidavit. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2017. The opposite party no.2 placed on record his evidence on 15.05.2017 which cannot be looked into as he was already proceeded ex-parte.

            The complainant also filed written arguments.   

We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

From pleadings affidavits and documents relied upon by the parties it is common of parties that the complainant purchased one mobile handset “HTC desire 820” from the opposite party no.1 authorized dealer of  the opposite party no.3 manufacturer on 13.11.2015 vide invoice no. VIKASPURI/398/NOV/2015 for sale consideration of Rs.23,300/- and was within warranty. The case of the complainant is that the mobile handset has manufacturing defect and was given for repairs within warranty. On the other hand the opposite party no.2 asserted in his reply that due to physical mobile handset is out of warranty.   

 From perusal of job sheet dated 25.05.2016 it reveals that the mobile handset was given for repairs to the opposite party no.1 within warranty. The default in the mobile handset was assessed by the engineer of the opposite party no.2 who gave report “BT GM and RF connector damaged”. The terms and conditions of job sheet clearly mention that mobile handset is not covered under warranty clause in case of water ingression physical damage and unauthorized opening. Further there is no cogent and convincing material on record to show that the mobile handset has manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant failed to show that the mobile handset was covered under warranty and there is any manufacturing defect. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

             In light of above discussion and observations complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on :

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)                              MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT