Aazam son of Mohammad Naseem, resident of House no.517, Delhi Gate, Azimpura, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. M/s Shri Sachidanand N.K.Gallery, B-II-1860 (Corner Shop), Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-8.

2. HTC Global Service India, SDF-II, Phase-II, MEPZ Tambran, Chennai, Tamilnadu (India)-600045.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                    Smt.Babita, Member

Present:      Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 and OP2 exparte.

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Aazam s/o of Mohammad Naseem, r/o House no.517, Delhi Gate, Azimpura, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur (herein-after in short to be referred to as ‘complainant’) against M/s Shri Sachidanand N.K.Gallery, B-II-1860 (Corner Shop), Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to refund the whole of the amount of Rs.38,600/- to the complainant with interest from the date of purchase and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, agony and mental torture and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a HTC one-X+S728e mobile phone having IMEI no.353567051587567, vide invoice no.R-1-25848 dated 30.12.12 for Rs.38,600/- from OP1 with a guarantee period of one year. Soon after the purchasing the mobile phone, it started giving problem in its camera baller display lighting. The complainant visited at OP1, who instructed the complainant to contact the service centre of OP2. The complainant contacted the Engineer of Service Centre of OP2, who registered complaint no.LUH001-0002176 on 31.1.13 and due to the negligence of service of OP2 during repairing the mobile, the SIM Trae was scratched. When the complainant had complained regarding the negligence committed by OP2, then they postponed the matter on one false pretext. Thereafter the complainant had contacted to OP2, who told that the photographs of scratched SIM Trae send to us by mail. Thereafter on 12.3.13 the complainant sent the three attachment of photographs of SIM Trae scratched by the service provider of OP2 by mail.  Thereafter OP told the complainant to approach OP2, then complainant approached OP2, who assured the complainant that the scratched from the SIM Trea will be removed. Complainant thereafter so many time approached OP2 for receiving his mobile phone, but the OP2 had not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The matter did not end here, as after seeing the delivery challan of mobile by the complainant he was astonished to see that the IMEI no.353567051587567 has been changed by the service centre of OP2 without the prior permission of the complainant. This fact also came into the knowledge of the complainant that the service centre of OP2 had changed the board of mobile instead to change the scratches on SIM Trae. When the complainant complained regarding this to the OP2 and its service centre then they did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant also requested them to replace the abovesaid mobile or to give back the whole amount of the said mobile phone with interest, but the flatly refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant had filed a consumer complaint no.320 of 23.4.14 before this Forum and the OPs were failed to appear before this Forum and Ops were proceeded exparte by this Forum and this Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant on 30.8.13 with a direction to the Ops to replace the Handset Mobile with the same made and model or in the alternate to refund of Rs.38,600/- price of the mobile alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the realization and further directed the OPs to pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs.3500/- to the complainant. But the Ops failed to comply with the order passed by this Forum. Thereafter complainant had filed an execution application before this Forum on 22.11.13. During the pendency of the execution application, the agent on behalf of OP2 had replaced the Handset mobile of the complainant handed over one cheque of Rs.3500/-. But at the time of replacement of Handset, the same was not sealed and on the constant request, the complainant received the same. The said set also giving trouble, as the same is hanging and not giving proper signal. Complainant so many times approached the Agent of OP2 in this regard, but the said Agent postponed the matter on one false pretext or the other. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OP1, which was served. But despite service of the notice, none had come present on behalf of OP1. As such, OP1 is proceeded exparte, vide order dated 19.11.14.

4.                Written statement on behalf of OP2 was received by post, whereby it is averred that HTC Global Services (India) Private Limited is not related to the case in any manner. Probably they were made as party due to mistaken identity of Name. They are not the manufacturer or distributor or retailer or service agent of HTC Phone. They are into Software exports, located in Madras Export Processing Zone. At the stage of evidence of OPs none has come present on behalf of OP2, despite giving intimation to OP2 regarding the date fixed for evidence of OPs. As such, OP2 was proceed exparte, vide order dated 16.4.15.          

5.                Ld. Counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.21.

6.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant had purchased a HTC one-X+S728e mobile phone having IMEI no.353567051587567, vide invoice no.R-1-25848 dated 30.12.12 for Rs.38,600/- from OP1 with a guaranty period of one year. But soon after the purchase of the mobile phone, it started giving problem in its camera baller display lighting. The complainant contacted the Engineer of Service Centre of OP2, who registered complaint no.LUH001-0002176 on 31.1.13, due to their negligence during repairing the mobile, the SIM Trae was scratched. The complainant had complained regarding the negligence committed by OP2 and approached OP2, who assured the complainant that the scratched from the SIM Trae will be removed. To the surprise of the complainant, in the delivery challan of mobile the IMEI no.353567051587567 was changed by the service centre of OP2 without the prior permission of the complainant. From which it appears that service centre of OP2 had changed the board of mobile instead to change the scratches on SIM Trae. Complainant complained regarding this fact to OP2 and its service, but with no result. The complainant also requested them to replace the mobile or to give back the whole amount of the said mobile phone with interest, but Ops flatly refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant. Further argued that the complainant had filed a consumer complaint no.320 of 23.4.14 before this Forum and also filed execution in order to comply with the order from the OPs. During the pendency of the execution application, the agent on behalf of OP2 had replaced the Handset mobile of the complainant handed over one cheque of Rs.3500/-. But at the time of replacement of Handset, the same was not sealed and on the constant request, the complainant received the same and the new mobile set also giving trouble, as the same is hanging and not giving proper signal. Complainant so many times approached the Agent of OP2 in this regard, but the said Agent postponed the matter on one false pretext or the other.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant and the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that complainant had purchased a HTC one-X+S728e mobile phone having IMEI no.353567051587567, vide invoice no.R-1-25848 dated 30.12.12 for Rs.38,600/- from OP1 with a guaranty period of one year. Soon after the purchasing the mobile phone, it started giving problem in its camera baller display lighting. The complainant contacted the Engineer of Service Centre of OP2, but due to the negligence of service of OP2 during repairing the mobile, the SIM Trae was scratched. When the complainant had complained regarding the negligence committed by OP2, thereafter OP2 assured the complainant that the scratched from the SIM Trea will be removed. But instead of removing the scratches, the OPs changed the board of the mobile phone. Complainant also filed the complaint before this Forum which was allowed, but the Ops failed to comply with the order of this Forum. Thereafter complainant has to move an execution application in order to comply with the order from the Ops. During the pendency of the execution application, the agent on behalf of OP2 had replaced the Handset mobile of the complainant handed over one cheque of Rs.3500/-. But the new mobile set replaced by the Ops also giving troubles like hanging and not giving proper signal. Complainant so many times approached the Agent of OP2 in this regard, but said Agent postponed the matter on one false pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP1 is directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of the hand set to the complainant. Further OP1 is directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

(Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)          Member                            Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.04.2015 

Hardeep Singh