Punjab

Moga

CC/16/126

Naveen Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohindra Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashok Goyal

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 126 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 25.07.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 19.10.2016

 

Naveen Kumar Gupta, aged 42 years, s/o Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, resident of House No.436, Street no.1, Mohallan Kishan Pura, Moga District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Mohindra Mobile World, Near Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga, through its Proprietor Vinod Kumar.

 

2.       Rashpal Telecom, 6, Red Cross Market Court Road, Moga, Punjab (HTC Care Service Centre), through its Manager Rashpal Singh.

 

3.       HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Office) G-4, Bptp Park Avenue Sector 30, Gurgaon- 122002, Near NH-8.  

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Ashok Goyal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Rashpal Singh, Proprietor for opposite party no.2.

                   Opposite party no.3 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Mohindra Mobile World, Near Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga, through its Proprietor Vinod Kumar and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to change the HTC Mobile Model HTC Desire 728G Dual Sim, IMEI no.351583070183355 purchased vide invoice dated 28.12.2015 with new warranty period or to refund Rs.15,500/- i.e. sale price of the aforesaid mobile. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and for litigation charges to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased one mobile hand set of HTC Company, Model HTC Desire 728G IMEI no.351583070183355 from opposite party no.1 vide retail invoice no.50314 dated 28.12.2015 for Rs.15,500/- manufactured by opposite party no.3. In the month of May and June 2016 the said mobile phone of the complainant started creating some problem regarding incoming call, phone auto off. The complainant approached the opposite party no. 1 and at their instance, complainant came to know about the Service Centre of HTC i.e. opposite party no.2. The concerned office of the Service Centre at Moga has suggested the complainant to deposit the mobile phone for repair of the same and accordingly the complainant deposited the mobile phone with it. After 12 days i.e. on 11.07.2016, opposite party no.2 handed over the mobile set of the complainant without solving the problem of incoming call phone auto off without any reasonable explanation for the same. The complainant asked the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 either to repair the mobile set or to replace/change the same with new one, but the opposite party failed to do the same. The warranty period of the said mobile hand set is for one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant had purchased the said mobile hand set in the month of December, 2015 and as such, the mobile hand set in question was in warranty period. But the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 were not ready to listen the complainant. It is the duty of the dealer plus manufacturer to provide service as per rules and regulations of guarantee and warranty period of any produce purchased by the consumer. But in the present case, the company failed to provide proper service and the problem of the mobile set in question was persist there for the last more than 3 months, even after depositing the mobile handset at the service centre of the company for 12 days. Before filing of the present complaint, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party no.1 and requested them to change the mobile hand set or to refund the price of the mobile, but they paid no heed to the request of the complainant and ultimately refused to do so. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant was harassed unnecessarily by the opposite parties. Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable against answering opposite party as the answering opposite party is only mobile dealer of HTC Company and he is dealing with the customer and providing him the best mobile set which was supplied by the manufacturer as well as dealer. If any mobile set give any problem, then it is the duty of service centre to remove the defect, if the defect is not remove by the service centre then manufacturer provided another mobile set to the customer, through service centre. In this case, the complainant had not deposited the mobile set with answering opposite party for removing the defect. The complainant has failed to produce the technical report which is shown that the mobile set is defective. The mobile set has became defective due to mishandling by the customer, so as per terms and conditions of the company, if the customer is mishandling the mobile, then he could not claim the same. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against answering opposite party. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set from answering opposite party. When the complainant had purchased the mobile, there was no manufacturing defect. The answering opposite party has no knowledge whether opposite party no.2 handed over the mobile set to the complainant on dated 11.07.2016 as alleged. Further submitted that when new mobile set has been purchased by the customer then a warranty is provided by the manufacture, but if the customer has use the mobile set ruff and tuff and by way of mishandling then warranty given by the company automatically cancelled. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.2 filed written reply submitting that Rashpal Telecom, Moga and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. has taken every possible step to satisfy the complainant. It has been further submitted that opposite party nos.2 & 3 wishes to submit that opposite party no.2 contacted the complainant on 30^th June, 2016 to resolver the issue. Complainant informed the opposite party that he has submitted the device for repair as he was facing auto restart issue with the device. According to warranty policy opposite party repaired the device and it is ready at the Service Centre. Answering opposite party is customer-centric and it does all that is possible with the Company Policy to satisfy the customers. Even in this case, it has done all its best to satisfy the complainant with offering 100% quality and check repairs. They are offering 1-1 replacement to customer for the loss he suffered and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3, despite issuing notice. As such, opposite party no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

6.                In order to prove the case, complainant Naveen Kumar Gupta tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

7.                In rebuttal, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. Whereas, Sh. Rashpal Singh, Proprietor of opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. OP-2, 3/1 and copy of service report Ex.OP-2, 3/2 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as opposite party nos.1 & 2 in person and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

9.                The case of the complainant is that he purchased a new mobile handset from opposite party no.1 for Rs.15,500/- against retail invoice dated 28.12.2015 manufactured by opposite party no.3, copy of retail invoice is Ex.C-2. The opposite parties gave one year warranty against any manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset. In the month of May/June, 2016, the said mobile handset started creating some problems. On it, complainant approached to opposite party no.1 and at their instance, he approached opposite party no.2, which is the authorized service of HTC. The opposite party no.2 suggested the complainant to deposit the mobile handset for repair and accordingly the complainant deposited his mobile handset with opposite party no.2 on 30.06.2016 against job sheet, copy of which is Ex.C-3. The opposite party no.2 handed over the mobile handset in question to complainant on 11.07.2016 without resolving the problem in the mobile handset without giving any reasonable explanation. The complainant asked the opposite parties either to repair the mobile handset or to replace the same with new one, as the mobile was within warranty period and as per the warranty the opposite parties are bound to remove defect in the mobile handset or to replace the same with new one, but opposite parties refused to repair or replace the mobile handset in question. They further refused to refund the price of the mobile handset, which amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice on the part of opposite parties. In reply, opposite party no.1 admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from them and submitted that opposite party no.1 is only the retailer and deals in the business of sales of mobile phones. The warranty and guarantee on the product is to be provided by the manufacturer directly through their service centre. The retailer has no concern with the warranty. All the services within warranty conditions are directly provided by the manufacturer and their service centre and retailer has no role in it. He unnecessarily impleaded as party in the present case and the present complaint against opposite party no.1 may be dismissed. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 submitted that they have taken every possible step to satisfy the complainant. They admitted that the complainant approached to them on 30.06.2016 to resolve the issue in the mobile handset in question. The complainant submitted his mobile phone for repair, as he was facing auto restart issue with the same. Further submitted that they are ready to repair the mobile phone of the complainant as per warranty policy. They have done their best to satisfy the complainant with offering 100% quality and check repairs. Even the opposite party nos.2 & 3 offered for the replacement of the mobile set to complainant for loss he has suffered, but the complainant refused for it and filed the present complaint. The present complaint may be dismissed against opposite party no.2.  

9.                It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased mobile phone in question on 28.12.2015 from opposite party no.1, which is manufactured by opposite party no.3. It is further admitted that there was some problem in the mobile hand set and for removing the defect, the complainant approached to opposite party no.2 on 30.06.2016. It is further admitted that the defect in the mobile phone was not resolved by opposite party nos. 2 & 3. However, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 offered for the replacement of mobile phone of the complainant with new one admitting the fault in the mobile phone. Now, when the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 admitting fault in the mobile phone in question and made a offer for the replacement of the mobile phone.

10.              In these circumstances, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and they are directed to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model with fresh warranty. Opposite party nos.2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The present complaint against opposite party no.1 stands dismissed. Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 19.10.2016.

 

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                            Member                                     President