Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/447/2018

Lovejeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Huawei Telecommunication (I) Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/447/2018
Date of Institution	:	12/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	06/08/2019

 

Lovejeet Singh S/o Sh. Baini Parshad, R/o H.No.265, Dashmesh Nagar, Opposite Post Office, Naya Gaon, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.     Huawei Telecommunication (I) Co. Pvt. Ltd., 7^th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze, 1 Tech Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon – 122001 (India), through its Authorized Officer.

2.     Harish Communication, SCO 62-63, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

3.     Service Centre of Huawei, SCO 2473-74, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Alok Bhatara, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER DR.S.K.Sardana, member

1.         In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Honor 8 Lite mobile handset of Huawei brand on 12.06.2017 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.18,000/- vide bill Annexure C-1. During the currency of its warranty, the said handset developed some problems and was deposited with Opposite Party No.3 on 12.05.2018, with the reported fault “SO3-Function Fault-Display”. It has been alleged that even after passing of two months, when Opposite Party No.3 failed to remove the defect, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 26.07.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Hence, the complainant has brought this consumer complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that Opposite Party No.3 tried to give the best services to the Complainant and since the Opposite Party No.3 was not having the spare parts sent the device to Service Centre, Ludhiana and once the device was repaired, the Opposite Party No.3 intimated the Complainant about the repairs and also asked him to collect the device, but the Complainant refused and aid he will litigate the matter. Also, due to the internal delay the Opposite Party No.3 also extended the warranty period by one month. The device is still with Opposite Party No.3 and is ready to give to the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.3 did not file any separate written statement. Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 made an endorsement on the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 itself that that Opposite Party No.3 adopts the reply and evidence of Opposite Party No.1.
5.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte).
8.         On perusal of Annexure-B and Annexure-C attached with the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, we find that after carrying out the necessary repairs the Complainant was asked by the Opposite Party No.3 to collect the device, but the Complainant failed to collect the same. Also, the Opposite Party No.3 had extended the warranty period by one month due to internal delay for carrying out aforesaid repairs. However, it was the Complainant who did not turn up to collect the device. Hence, in our opinion, no case is made out against Opposite Parties and the present Complaint qua Opposite Parties deserves to be dismissed. 
9.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/08/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”