BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  286 of 07.04.2016.                                                            Date of Decision: 26.09.2016.

Surjit Deva aged 31 years son of Dil Bahadur, resident of H. No.2762, Phase-I, Ward No.60, Urban Estate, CRP Colony, Model Town, Ludhiana.

..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. HTC Telecom Pvt. Ltd., D-55, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phae-I, New Delhi-110020 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized person.
2. TVS Electronics Ltd., Cabin No.111, Plot No.260-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through its Authorized Officer/Manager.
3. M/s. A.S. Electronics (India), G.T. Road, Daba Road, Street No.8, BMS Nagar, Ludhiana through its Partner/Proprietor.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant purchased one mobile phone of make HTC Desire 816-G bearing IMEI No.355702060287754 and 355702060647759 from OP3 vide bill no.9624 dated 31.01.2015 for consideration of Rs.17,900/-. That mobile set is manufactured by OP1 and OP2 is the service centre. The mobile set was purchased with the hope that same was of high quality as assured by OP1 and OP3. Guarantee of the mobile set was for one year from the date of purchase. Assurance for replacement of the mobile set was given in case the defect surfaced in the functioning of the same. OP3 issued a guarantee certificate to complainant in respect of this mobile set. That certificate contained terms and conditions of the guarantee. Soon after the purchase defect developed in the mobile. That defect was regarding the  network service failure (including drop call, roaming) etc. Thereafter, complainant took the mobile set to OP2, who promised to remove the defect. This mobile set was taken earlier on 2-3 occasions, but lastly it was taken on 30.01.2016. Copy of job sheet dated 30.01.2016 alone has been produced. Complainant was called upon to return back within fortnight, but even after expiry of the said period, mobile set has not been returned by OP2. This is despite the fact that complainant approached Ops many times with request to remove the manufacturing defect in the mobile set or replacing the same with new one. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, direction sought against Ops to replace the defective mobile set with new one. Even direction sought for compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/-

2.                Ops in this case are exparte.

3.                Complainant to prove his case, tendered in exparte evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and then he along with his counsel closed evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed.

5.                Complainant has produced the invoice bill Ex. C2 for establishing that the mobile set in question was purchased on 31.01.2015 for consideration of Rs.17,900/-. Ex. C1 is the service report dated 30.01.2016 showing as if mobile set in question was deposited with OP2 because of the network service failure (including drop call, roaming, fail to detect SIM or RUIM Card, main camera malfunction/CAMERA OPTION NOT SHOW.  Ex. C3 is the photo copy of mobile screen display. So this documentary evidence along with contents of affidavit Ex. CA enough to establish as if mobile set developed defect referred in the complaint  through Ex. C1 and that is why same was deposited with OP2. Despite that deposit of mobile set, same has not been returned and as such, certainly complainant has suffered mental tension and sufferings.  Complainant had to visit OP2 repeatedly  after 30.01.2016 for fetching the mobile, but the same after due repair has not been returned for 3 months and that is why this complaint filed and as such, certainly complainant entitled for compensation for mental pain and sufferings and also for litigation expenses. However, the warranty period as per contents of complaint itself was to expire after one year of the purchase and said expiry of one year was to take place on 30.01.2016, the date on which this mobile was deposited with OP2 through job sheet. Dates of earlier visits not mentioned and as such, replacement of defective mobile must not be ordered, but repair of the same alone should be ordered. Due to non return of mobile for three months, complainant suffered mental harassment and has to file this complaint and as such, he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

6.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed exparte in terms that OPs will repair the mobile set in question free of costs once within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will return the same to complainant. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against the Ops. Compliance of these directions be made within 30 days by Ops from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case the mobile set found not repairable/irrepairable, then Ops will replace the same with new one of model of equal price. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Vinod Bala)                   (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                           President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:26.09.2016.

Gobind Ram.