BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.116 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.03.2015

Date of Decision :12.05.2015

Raghav Singla aged about 24 years so of Suresh Kumar Singla R/o H.No.40/1, Mohalla No.14, Jalandhar Cantt, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. MPS Telecom Pvt Ltd, Importer of HTC Mobile Registered Office-702-A, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its MD/Authorized Signatory.

2. Shree Communications, Authorized Service Centre of HTC Mobiles, Shop NO.5, GS Bajwa Complex, Opp.Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

3. Chadha Mobile House Care of Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory/Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sourav Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra Auth.Rep.of opposite parties No.1 and 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of HTC company model Desire-601 having IMEI No.357986050382893 from the opposite party No.3 which is authorized agent/retailer of opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.21,700/- in cash with one year warranty on 12.1.2014 vide invoice No.54665. The opposite party No.1 is the importer of HTC mobile having trade mark HTC carrying on business throughout India including Jalandhar and opposite party No.2 is approved and authorized service centre under the care and supervision and the administrative control of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1. When the complainant started using the mobile phone he faced the problems in the handset like touch of the mobile phone, application not open and phone hanging problem after the expiry of three months, then the complainant visited the service centre in Jalandhar and the opposite party No.2 reset the phone and update the software and assured the complainant that the same will not happen again. But again the same problem arose and the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 received the handset and sent it to the company service centre. Thereafter the handset was delivered to the complainant after twenty days and at that time it was again assured by the opposite party No.2 the said problem will not arose again. As per the assurance of the engineer of the opposite party No.2 the complainant again started using the handset, but the same thing happened, so the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 on 29.12.2014 and stated the problem to the representative of opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset and issued the challan No.2189 dated 29.12.2012 and stated to the complainant that the handset will be delivered to him as soon as possible after curing all the defects. After few days the complainant received his handset and he received a telephonic call from a person namely Piyush representative of opposite party No.1 who told to the complainant that the parts of the handset has totally been changed and three months warranty extended on the change parts of the handset and gave a reference case No.C2015000311501. But again after twenty days the same problem occurred in the handset and the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 on 24.2.2015, the opposite party engineer booked the mobile set and issued the job sheet bearing No.ATQ003-0003296 and gave the remarks that the touch not working/hanging problem/apps not working/power switch not working/dead. The complainant had sent two representations to the HTC service centre, New Delhi through courier but nothing fell on deaf ears of the opposite parties. The complainant after few days approached the opposite party No.2 for the delivery of handset but the opposite party No.2 postpone the matter on one pretext to another. Finally the opposite party No.2 try to hand over the handset to the complainant in faulty condition and told him the set could not be replaced unless and untill report does not come from the technical department to the effect that the set has technical fault, so the complainant refused to receive the handset. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the handset i.e Rs.21,700/-. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and made a statement that opposite parties No.1 and 2 are ready to give the new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant and they are not to file any written statement and not to tender any evidence.

3. Upon notice opposite party No.3 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of opposite parties No.1 and 2.

5. The complainant purchased the handset in question for Rs.21,700/- vide retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 12.1.2014 from opposite party No.3. According to complainant when he used the handset it repeatedly developed defects which the opposite parties failed to rectify. Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.1 and 2 has stated that they are ready to give the new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant. This fact clearly shows that mobile handset purchased by the complainant was defective and was beyond repair. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant is not ready to accept the mobile handset of the same make and model and refund of price should be ordered. When the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are ready to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant, the demand of refund of price by the complainant is not justified.

6. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.1 and 2 and they are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant in lieu of old one with fresh warranty or in the alternative to refund its price i.e Rs.21,700/- to him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.05.2015 Member Member President