Haryana

Ambala

CC/162/2015

Vishal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC Customer Service - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         162 OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         11-06-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         30.09.2015

 

Vishal Sharma son of Sh. Guna Nand aged 25 years, resident of H.No. 157-A, Assa Singh Garden, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                                 :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                               Versus

1.                 HTC Customer Service at TVS Electronics Limited, South Phase- 7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate. Guindy Chennai-600032.

2.                MPS Telecom Private Limited D-55,First and Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- I, New Delhi-110020.

3.                 Nanak Telecom,74/75, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, Haryana -133001.

                                                                                                                                     :::::::Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-             Complainant in person

                             Reply of OP No.1 received by post.

                             OPs No. 2 & 3 ex-parte.                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased HTC desire 516 Dual Sim (Gray)  Mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 352465064293425 vide bill No.6500 dated 25/10/2014 in a sum of Rs.12,600/- from Dashing Mobile World, Near Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City with a warranty of 1 year. In the month of April 2015, the said mobile phone started giving problem of overheating and battery back up, so, the complainant visited the OP No.3 for its repair where the said service centre sent the mobile phone in question to their head of.fice for repair vide Ticket No.15ina 170014238 and Job  No IXC009-0001875 on 24-4-2015 at 11:31:31 AM, and provided 21 days time for the rectification of the alleged problems but no fruitful result and thereafter the complainant called the OP No.1,customer service so many times to give him the right feed back about his mobile set but customer service manager failed to give right response rather asked 'to call next day'  and thus the complainant visited the premises of the OP No.3 at Ambala at least 25 times who failed to give satisfactory reply to the complainant. In this way the mobile in question supplied by the OP was having manufacturing defect  from the beginning to which the Ops failed to replace  with a new one within the warranty period which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Notice served upon all the OPs wherein OP No.1 submitted his reply by post whereas  the remaining OPs  i.e. OP No.2 & 3 failed to appear before the forum despite service  and as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30-7-2015.  OP No.1 in his reply submitted that he is only service provider for the HTC and not the manufacturer of HTC mobiles and further urged  that the complainant has never approached to the OP No.1 for any services and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.1.

 

3.           In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 & C-2 and closed his evidence.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant and  gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant  is  that  he purchased  the mobile set in question  on  25-10-2014  for Rs.12,600/- from Dashing Mobile World, Near Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City with a warranty of one year and after sometime, the mobile  phone started creating  problems of overheating and battery back up, but the said problem could not be rectified by the OPs despite various visits to the service centre of the OP company at Ambala Cantt and inspite of sending the same to head office of the company. The complainant  has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other   wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.

 

5.                After hearing the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of HTC Company  was  sold  by Dashing Mobile World, Near Jagadhri Gate, Ambala City to the complainant on 25-10-2014. Further it is also not in dispute that the mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective during the warranty period as revealed from document Annexure C-2 job sheet dated 24.4.2015 wherein the problem of overheating and battery back up & others have been specifically mentioned and the handset so  received by the OP No.3 service centre of the company vide above referred jobsheet had not been returned to the complainant since the contention of complaint remained unrebutted as OPs did not bother to contest the matter despite their service.

 

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that mobile set sold to the complainant by the OPs  was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the OPs  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre at Ambala. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

                (i)         to return Rs.12,600/- i.e. cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase to till its realization.

               (ii)         to  pay  Rs. 3000/- as  compensation  for  harrasment and mental agony etc.

             (iii)           also to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

Announced: 30.09.2015                                                              ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                               ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                                         MEMBER