Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/341/2018

Sh. Avneesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gagandeep Goel Adv.

04 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	341/2018
Date of Institution	:	19.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	04.06.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Sh.Avneesh Sharma @ Sh.Avneesh Nadda aged 28 years son of Sh.Satpal Sharma, H.No.1039, First Floor, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh -160019.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Huawei Telecommunication India Co. Pvt. Ltd., 7^th Floor, Tower A, Spaze i-Tech Park, Sohana Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana (India).
2. Mobile Connect through its Authorized Person, SCO No.2473-74, Secord Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh -160022.
3. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, India.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Amit Sharma, Adv. for Sh.Gagandeep Goel, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Alok Bhatara, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.2.

Sh.Rohit Kumar, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Honour 10 vide Invoice dated 23.05.2018 for Rs.32,999/- from OP No.1 through OP No.3, having one year warranty of the mobile phone and 6 months for its accessories.  After 12 days of its purchase, a vertical blue line on the screen was developed on the mobile phone and the same did not go away even after re-booting it.  He approached OP No.1 and exchanged number of e-mails with it but to no effect. He also approached OP No.2 authorized service center of OP No.1 but they refused to entertain his request and even refused to issue the job sheet.  He even adopted the method as prescribed on the website of OP No.1 with regard to change of the defective mobile phone by the name of ‘service flow’.  It has further been averred that he was told to communicate to the Customer Care Executive regarding his grievance and he was told that it was the manufacturing defect and did not occur due to any physical damage but yet again the Customer Care Executives did not entertain his complaint.  He was made to wait for hours and hours together in the office of OP No.2 and during the telephonic calls he was made to wait for 20-30 minutes on a stretch and he did not receive any satisfactory reply from OPs No.1 and 2.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the complainant has alleged that the mobile phone was having some defect i.e. vertical blue line appearing on its screen and approached OP No.2 for repairs.  It has further been pleaded that at the time of entry level screening, OP No.2 observed the liquid presence inside the mobile phone.  It has further been pleaded that OP No.2 intimated the complainant that the service and the repair cannot be done under the warranty since the liquid damage was not covered  under the warranty and hence the chargeable service can be offered by OP No.2, which was not accepted by him and OP No.2 returned the device without repairs to him. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
3.         On 11.01.2019, the Counsel for OP No.2 has stated that he adopted the reply filed by OP No.1.
4.         In its written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that the grievance of the complainant relates to after sales service and therefore, he rightly approached the authorized service center of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.1.  It has further been pleaded that all the averments are made against OPs No.1 and 2.  It has provided full support as intermediary to the complainant.  It has further been pleaded that it merely operates the portal and is not involved in the actual commercial transactions being carried out between the buyer and the seller/vendors registered with the portal. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be allowed for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the mobile phone in question became defective just after 10 days of its purchase and the repairs were denied by OPs No.1 & 2 within the warranty period on the ground that the same is liquid damage.  However, we are not inclined to accept this submission of OP Nos.2 & 3 because they have not been able to place on record any reliable and convincing documentary evidence to prove their assertion. The report (Annexure B) attached with the written statement has neither been signed by any authorized person of the Company nor it bears any stamp of the Company.  Besides this, the affidavit of the Engineer/Service Manager who physically checked the mobile phone in question and alleged to have given the report (Annexure B) has been placed on record.  On the other hand, they have placed on record an affidavit of one Sh.Abhishek Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 who had never got an occasion to check the mobile phone in question.  Therefore, the plea as taken by OPs No.1 & 2 cannot be given any due credence and the same is rejected accordingly.
7.         Moreover, it is a common practice, now a days, of the Companies to deny service, within warranty period, to a common man/consumer by taking one plea or the other plea like in the present case so that the claim could be easily ousted from warranty terms and they would earn by carrying out repairs on payment basis even within the warranty period.  It was the responsibility of OPs No.1 and 2 to render the post sale services to the complainant within the warranty period but they have failed to set right the defect in the mobile phone in question despite the fact that the same has become defective within the warranty period.  Non-repairing of the mobile phone by OPs No.1 and 2  within the warranty period itself amounts to deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part.
8.         Now coming to the prayer of the complainant for refund of the price of the mobile phone, we are of the view that the same cannot be granted simply because apart from the problem aforesaid, no other defect has specifically been pointed out by him.  The complainant has also not adduced any expert evidence in support of his case that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question which cannot be removed and that the same needs to be replaced.  It is settled law that if a defect can be rectified by repairing/replacing the part(s), there is no need to replace the whole machine.
9.         In such circumstances, OPs No.1 and 2 are bound to repair the mobile phone by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s) without charging anything from him as the same was within the warranty period. 
10.          In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2.  OPs No.1 and 2are directed as under :-

1. To repair the defective mobile phone  of the complainant by repairing/replacing the necessary part(s), if any, free of cost. In case, the mobile phone is not repairable then the OPs shall replace the same with a new one of the equal price.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No. (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides compliance of directions as mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (iii).

11.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.             

Announced

04/06/2019

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER