Haryana

Panchkula

CC/241/2015

RITESH JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HTC CUSTOMER SERVICEAT TVS ELECTRONICS LTD.&OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDAN DHINGRA.

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	241 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	11.03.2016

                                                                                          

Ritesh Jain s/o Sh.Sham Lal Jain, R/o House No.890, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s HTC Customer Service at TVS Electronics Ltd., South Phase-7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032.

2.       M/s MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd., D-55, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

3.       Shri Mihi Communication, SCO No.46, Canam Plaza, Sector-11, Panchkula.

4.       M/s Shivam Communications, SCO No.38, 1^st Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                   …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Chandan Singh Dhingra, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the Op No.1.

OPs No.2, 3 & 4 already exparte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased an HTC Desire 816 duo sim phone from Op No.3 vide bill bearing No.3006 dated 02.08.2014 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.24,000/- with warranty of one year. But in the month of March, 2015, the mobile phone started giving problem i.e. contacts could not refresh easily, heat up problem, hang problem and it almost took 2 min to save the contact, restarted on its own, has a network problem and link get disconnected several times in a day etc. The complainant lodged online complaint with HTC i.e. OP No.1 on 21.03.2015. On 22.03.2015, the complainant received the reply regarding his online complaint in which the Op No.1 told the complainant how to operate the device. On 23.03.2015 again, the complainant lodged online complaint that after doing the process suggested in mail, the mobile was having same problem. On 27.03.2015, the complainant received the reply regarding his complaint in which the complainant was advised to submit the mobile phone at nearest service center. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 27.03.2015, the complainant received another reply in which the complainant was assured that his mobile phone would be repaired. But thereafter, the condition of the mobile phone became worse as it became too slow, camera not working properly and very difficult to operate. On 07.07.2015, the complainant approached the customer care center whose executive assured the complainant that the mobile phone would be repaired within one or two weeks. After two weeks, the complainant approached the customer care center to get his mobile phone back but the executive told that his mobile was still not repaired and he would get the same after 10-15 days but in vain. On 27.07.2015, 29.07.2015 and 01.08.2015, the complainant lodged online complaint with Op No.1 that his mobile phone was not repaired but to no avail. The warranty period of the mobile phone has been expired on 01.08.2015. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure C-2) to the Ops but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 has sent his written statement by post and did not appear. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is not the manufacturer of HTC mobiles but only an authorized service center of HTC India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon for providing warranty service. It is submitted that HTC India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon is the manufacturer of HTC mobiles. It is submitted that the complainant has never contacted the Op No.1. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the Ops No.2, 3 and 4 through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.2, 3 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.12.2015.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence. Since, the Op No.1 has not tendered any evidence and the evidence of the Op No.1 was closed by court order vide order dated 17.02.2016.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the file reveals that undoubtedly, the complainant purchased a HTC Desire 816 duo sim mobile phone from OP No.3 on 02.08.2014 (Annexure C-1) for a sum of Rs.24,000/-.  The mobile was within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile. After few months, the complainant faced some technical problem in the mobile phone and lodged online complaint with OP No.1 who told the complainant how to operate the device and thereafter, to submit the mobile phone to service center. The complainant submitted the mobile phone to customer care service whose executive told the complainant that he would collect the mobile phone after 10-15 days after repair but failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged online complaint dated 27.07.2015, 29.07.2015 and 01.08.2015 with Op No.1 regarding unrepaired mobile but to no avail. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. After having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper services and non-rectification of problems in the mobile phone clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. Moreover, the Ops No.2, 3 and 4 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops No.2, 3 and 4 despite notice show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is proved.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.24,000/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 02.08.2014  till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

11.03.2016              (S.P.Attri)             (Anita Kapoor)          (Dharam Pal)

                              Member               Member                      President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                 

                                                                   Dharam Pal

                                                                    President