Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/465

NISHCHINT KHURNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

 

CASE NO.  465/2016

SH. NISHCHINT KHURANA

R/o WZ-139/4B, GALI NO. 12,

LAV KUSH APARTMENT,

NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR,

P.O. TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110018.                                   …..Complainant

VERSUS

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATION(INDIA) PVT. LTD.

7^TH FLOOR, TOWER-A, SPAZE 1-TECH PARK,

SOHNA ROAD, SECTOR-49,

GURGAON, HARYANA-122001.                                                 …..Opposite Party-1

 

MBULLS SERVICES

PLOT-19, NEAR HANDA NURSING HOME,

RAJA GARDEN CHOWK,

NEW DELHI-110027.                                                                        …..Opposition Party-2

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly the matter of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Huawei Nexus 6P from Reliance Digital on 30.11.2015. It is alleged that after few days the mobile handset developed fault with issue of speaker and same was submitted to Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi authorized service centre, who replaced the faulty handset with a new one. However, even the new handset had same issue and was replaced again. It is alleged that thrice the replacement was done in less than six months and the complainant has visited several times. The handset in dispute showed message that the device has some internal problem. The complainant after having telephonic conversation with customer care of OP-1 who suggested to deposit the phone with OP-2 authorized service centre. The complainant after submitting the handset to OP-2 was told come after a week. The complainant visited OP-2 to collect the handset but the handset had same problem and it was not resolved by OP-2. The handset is still with  OP-2 and the complainant several times requested to the OPs to redress his grievance but to no effect.  Hence, the present for directions to OPs to refund a sum of Rs. 42,199/- cost of handset and a sum of Rs. 65,000/- for compensation on account of mental, agony, physical harassment, miscellaneous expenses, loss of work and studies alongwith the interest @ 18%.

          After notice, OP-1 appeared and filed reply taking preliminarily objections that the complaint is false, malicious, frivolous and misconceived and filed with mala-fide intention for gaining financially and has not approached the forum with clean hands and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. It is averred that as per warranty the handset was immediately swapped and services were provided. The handset was having basic technical problems like distorted speaker sound and heating and the grievance of the complaint was redressed by swapping the handset twice. Third time the complaint refused for the replacement and e-mail was sent to the complainant informing about the proposed settlement but the complainant failed to reply back. The OP-1 vide e-mail dated 12.08.2016 again offered to give new handset. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of OP-1 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          Despite notice none put in appearance on behalf of OP-2 and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.09.2016.

          Rejoinder to the reply of OP-1filed by complainant reaffirming the facts of the complaint and controverting the stand taken by OP-1.

          When the parties were asked to lead evidence the complainant filed affidavit of evidence reiterating the facts of the complaint on oath and relied on copy of invoice dt. 30.11.2015, copies of job-sheets dt. 11.06.2016, 18.06.2016 and copy of e-mails. OP-1 also filed affidavit of evidence of Sh. Gaurav Arora, General Counsel & Company Secretary reaffirming the facts of reply and rebutting the allegations of complaint.

          Written arguments filed by parties.

          We have heard complainant in person despite opportunity OP-1 failed to advance arguments, but the written arguments are filed by OP-1.

          The controversy involved is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief he has sought. It is admitted by OP-1that the mobile handset had been replaced twice. Nonetheless the handset is not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant even the job-sheet dated 18.06.2016 shows that the complainant did not accept the handset. The OP failed to establish that the handset is repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant despite replacement. We are of the considered view that the complainant had faced harassment not mentally but physically also due to deficiency of service of OPs. Therefore, the OPs jointly and severally are liable to refund the cost of mobile handset.

Keeping in view the above discussions and observation, we direct OPs jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs. 38,221/- excluding VAT% and also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental, agony, physical harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days from the receipt of the order. In case of default of payment in time OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.

File be consigned to Record Room.

          Copy of Order be given as per rules.

          Announced this ________5TH___March, 2019.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                             (K.S. MOHI)

     MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT