BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.10/15.
Date of instt.: 15.01.2015.
Date of Decision: 10.12.2015.
Mandeep Chahal S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of 1547/5, R.K.Puram Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
1. M/s. Shiv Communication through its Partner/Proprietor near R.K.S.D.College, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. M/s. HTC Care Centre, Mugal Canal Market, near Sabji Mandi, Karnal.
3. MPS, Telecom Pvt. Ltd., D-55, First & Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile phone HTC Desire 700 bearing IMEI No.351754060255053 and 351754060255061 from Op No.1 for sum of Rs.23,000/- vide bill No.1538 dt. 25.02.2014. It is alleged that from the very beginning of its purchase, the said mobile set was not working properly and it turns off while in use, the screen/display turns white and does not turn on, the touch and front camera of the phone do not work properly, the phone does not show the call register column properly, the battery back-up is only for 2/3 hours and sometimes, there comes a direction on the screen “insert sim card” and does not allow the charger for the purpose of charging. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said mobile phone but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.03.2015. Op No.1 filed written statement evasively denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that HTC Care Centre and MPs Telecom has taken every possible step to satisfy the complainant; it is stated that the Op No.3 contacted the complainant on 5th May, 2015 to resolve the issue. Op No.2 informed the customer that they can replace the device with the latest model i.e. HTC Desire 816 Dual SIM with three months of repair warranty; it is further stated that despite repairing the handset and extending additional warranty for three months, the complainant approached the court with the sole intention of making a profit out of it and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 16.09.2015. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 did not tender any evidence and they also did not appear on 15.10.2015, so, both the Ops No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte on the said date.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone HTC Desire 700 bearing IMEI No.351754060255053 and 351754060255061 from Op No.1 for sum of Rs.23,000/- vide bill No.1538 dt. 25.02.2014. He argued that from the very beginning of its purchase, the said mobile set was not working properly and it turns off while in use, the screen/display turns white and does not turn on, the touch and front camera of the phone do not work properly, the phone does not show the call register column properly, the battery back-up is only for 2/3 hours and sometimes, there comes a direction on the screen “insert sim card” and does not allow the charger for the purpose of charging. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and bill Ex.C1Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.1538 dt. 25.02.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.23,000/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.12.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
