Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 554.
Instituted on : 20.09.2017.
Decided on : 03.04.2019.
Vikas, age 32 years, son of Sh. Silak Ram, Resident of VPO Makrauli, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Om Sai Enterprises, Civil Road, Opp, Petrol Pump Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak(Haryana).
- M/s Swastic Systems, Shop no. 7, Bapu Aasha Ram Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
3. HTC India Pvt. Ltd. G-4 BPTP, Park Avenue Near NH-8, Sec-30, Gurugaon (HR) Manufacturer of HTC Mobile.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Satyawan Kundu, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone HTC828 having EMI No. 352532070353137 from the respondent No. 1 vide invoice no.13067 dated 27.01.2016 for Rs.19,700/-. It is alleged that after some days the touch system was not working and there were many problems in its working system. After that complainant approached to the respondent No. 1 for replacement of the mobile in question, then respondent No. 1 asked to complainant to approach the service center of this mobile i.e. respondent No. 2. On dated 29.02.2016 the complainant deposited the same mobile set with the respondent No. 2. After that the respondent No. 2 prepared a job sheet No. DEL023-0010645 dated 29.10.2016 and also promised to solve out all the problems of the mobile set within two days. the respondent No. 2 also received an amount of Rs. 230/- from the complainant on same day. The respondent No. 2 fails to repair the mobile set and the complainant approached so many times to the respondent No. 2 regarding get back the mobile set. After some days, the respondent No. 2 told the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,000/- as repair cost of the mobile set. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 had supplied and sold a defected mobile phone to the complainant and respondent No. 2 has failed to provide proper after sale-services to the complainant. That on 07.04.2016 a complaint in this regard was filed before District Consumer Redressal Forum and the same was withdrawn on dated 28.11.2016 with due permission to file the fresh complaint. A legal notice dated 12.05.2017 in this regard also issued to the respondents, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay amount of Rs.19,700/- towards the cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the respondent No. 2 was not an authorized service centre and was only a collection point. It is further submitted that complainant had approached the opposite party on 29.02.2016 and on inspection the touch screen was not working and the set was also physically damaged. As per process, the complainant was informed and a quotation of rupees approx 75% to 80% was raised by the company. The complainant instead of paying repair charges, filed the present complaint to gain undue advantage of the warranty process. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party No. 2 failed to appear before the Forum on 30.01.2019, hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.01.2019 of this Forum.
3. Opposite party No. 1 failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 1 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.11.2017. Notice issued to opposite party No. 3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, OP no. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.05.2018 of this Forum.
4. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 30.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 27.01.2016. As per copy of job sheet Ex.C2 dated 29.02.2016, there was defect in the touch screen and the mobile was in warranty period. But as per the written reply filed by the opposite party no.2 the mobile was physically damaged so the same was out of warranty. But to prove its contention, opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document and has been proceeded against exparte. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 & 3 also did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile in question stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile in question as the defect appeared in the mobile set just after a month of its purchase.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.19700/-(Rupees nineteen thousand seven hundred only) towards cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2017 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.04.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
