Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/157

Shri Nikhil Jaitly through his attorney Shri Pramod Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC & Ors. through the managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jan 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:22.03.2013    

Complaint Case. No.157/13                                                                                         Date of order: 12.01.2017                     

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Nikhil Jaitly through his attorney  Shri Pramod Sharma, D-43, Gujranwala Aparetments, Vikas puri, New Delhi-110018                                                                                   Complainant

VERSUS

HTC & Ors. through the managing Director, HTC mobiles, Salora, D-13/4, Okhla Ind. Area,Phase-II, New Delhi-110020                                                                          Opposite party-1

 

HTC (Authorized Service Centre) APEX, The Perfect Solution, UG-29/30, Vishwadeep Towers, opposite liberty showroom, Dist. Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                                                                      Opposite party -2

 

 

 

      ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by Shri Nikhil Jaitly herein complaint through  his attorney Shri Parmod Sharma  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for directions to opposite parties to pay cost of mobile handset along with compensation.

Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘HTC TOUCH 3G’ from Infotech Gallery   for sale consideration of Rs.16,500/- vide invoice no.1372 dated 18.10.2009. The mobile handset developed some fault within six months.  The handset was deposited with opposite party no.2 for repairs. The same was repaired by replacing mother board and returned. But the handset again developed fault. The complainant again deposited the mobile handset with opposite party no. 2 for repairs vide job sheet dated 11.05.2011. The opposite party no. 2 told the complainant that handset will be repaired. On 11.11.2011 the opposite party no.1 told the complainant through email that the mobile handset will be replaced by new mobile handset. The opposite party no. 2 on 06.04.2012 told the complainant to deliver the replaced handset within six to seven days.  The complainant approached the opposite

-2-

parties to know about the replacement but the opposite party failed to deliver the replaced handset. But till today the mobile handset is not replaced.  Hence the opposite parties failed to provide service to the complainant. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of the mobile handset along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till date of realization  and pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But despite notice none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Therefore, opposite party no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.03.2016 and opposite party no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.05.2016.

            The complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant filed affidavit dated 08.07.2016 in support of his case reiterating the facts of the complaint and relied upon copy of authority letter dated 29.01.2013, copy of invoice dated 18.10.2009, copy of job sheet dated 11.05.2011 and copy of emails. The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.

On perusal of the affidavit and documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that one mobile handset HTC 3G was purchased by the complainant on 18.10.2009 for sale consideration of Rs. 16,500/- from Infotech Gallary. The mobile handset was given to opposite party no. 2 for repairs. Vide email dated 11.11.2011 the opposite party no. 2 assured the complainant to replace the old mobile handset with new mobile handset of same model. But the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 failed to provide new mobile handset as assured by them.  The complainant has suffered loss of mobile handset and is also deprived of his valuable right to use the same.   

We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence and version of the complainant .  The complainant from the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset ‘HTC TOUCH 3G’ from Infotech Gallery for sale consideration of Rs 16,500/- vide invoice no.1372 dated 18.10.2009. The mobile handset developed some fault. The handset was deposited with opposite party no.2 for repairs. The same was repaired by replacing mother board and returned. But the handset again developed fault. The complainant again deposited the mobile handset with opposite party no. 2 for repairs vide job sheet dated 11.05.2011. On 11.11.2011 the opposite party no.1 assured the complainant through email that the mobile handset will be replaced by new mobile handset. The opposite party no. 2 on 06.04.2012 told the complainant to deliver the replaced handset within six to seven days. But failed to

-3-

provide new mobile handset. Hence there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties no.1 and 2. Therefore opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are liable to pay cost of mobile handset and compensation of Rs. 15,00/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.  

In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/- cost of mobile handset with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount. We further award compensation of Rs.1500/- for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and for loss of use of mobile handset for almost two years and litigation expenses. They are jointly and severely liable to pay the amount.

Order pronounced on : 12.01.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                  (URMILA GUPTA)                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

     MEMBER                                                   MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT