DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.269 of 11-04-2016

Decided on 14-09-2016

Mridul Jindal aged about 19 years S/o Kewal Krishan R/o Chaudhary Chet Singh Street, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot (Punjab) India Pin-151202.

........Complainant

Versus

1.MVS Communication (Dealer), Shop No.7, Subhash Market Near Water Tank, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge or Authorized Persons.

2.Unitech (Service Centre), #6384/2481-A, Bangi House Street, Mehna Marg Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge or Authorized Persons.

3.HTC Towers (HTC Company) No.41, GST Road, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai, (TN)-600032, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Incharge/Managing Director.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For complainant: Sh.Bharat Bhushan, Advocate.

Opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Mridul Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties MVS Communication (Dealer) and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one HTC Desire 820 mobile handset for Rs.23,500/- vide bill No.135 dated 16.4.2015 from opposite party No.1 with full guarantee and warranty.

3. It is alleged that after 25 days from the date of purchase of mobile handset, there were problems of 'hang, heating of processor and low battery backup'. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1, it asked him to contact HTC Care Service. Accordingly, he contacted HTC Care Unitech (Opposite party No.2). After retaining the mobile handset for one month, opposite party No.2 returned the same with O.K condition and told that all the faults have been removed. The job sheet was retained by HTC Care Centre.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant started using the mobile handset, but it was not working properly. He again and again visited HTC care and last time on 6.11.2015, it again returned the mobile handset by pleading that all the defects have been removed and promised to replace the mobile handset with new one with full guarantee and warranty, if the faults reoccurred, but thereafter the problems have increased and mobile handset is not functioning. He again visited HTC care and dealer and requested them to replace the mobile handset due to its non-functioning, but they flatly refused and misbehaved with him. The complainant got served the legal notice to opposite parties, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to them either to replace the mobile handset with new one with full guarantee and warranty or to refund its price i.e. Rs.23,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

6. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

7. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 6.4.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C4); photocopies of postal receipts, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7) and photocopy of warranty statement, (Ex.C8).

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has reiterated his stand by way of affidavit. The bill, (Ex.C2) proves that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.23,500/-. Job sheet, (Ex.C3) proves that default in the mobile handset was reported on 6.11.2015 for first time and complainant has deposed on oath that opposite parties retained the job sheet. This evidence is un-rebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. The claim is within the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the claim relief.

   To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited 2014 (3) CLT 177 Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors Limited & Others to submit that when the complainant had to visit the service centre repeatedly for repair, it is presumed that there is some manufacturing defect and onus of proof should be shifted upon opposite party side.

   He has also cited I (2014) CPJ 132 (NC) Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Tyagi & Anr.;

   2013 (3) CPJ 520 Sas Motors Ltd. Vs. Anant Haridas Choudhari.

10. We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for the complainant.

11. Before proceedings further, we would like to make it clear that the complainant has cited case law mainly to support his contention that due to defects detailed by him it is to be accepted that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by him. Of-course, he has alleged manufacturing defect, but there is only one job sheet to support this averment. Vide this job sheet, the complainant has reported the problem regarding battery back up and speaker issue. He has not produced any expert report or other job sheet to prove that the same problem reoccurred time and again. Therefore, the case law cited by the learned counsel for complainant to prove that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset is not helpful.

12. The complainant has pleaded that there is some fault in the mobile handset and opposite parties have failed to solve the same. The complainant has deposed on oath that he has also got served legal notice wherein opposite parties were called upon to do needful. This evidence is unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant has filed this complaint against dealer (Opposite party No.1), but there is nothing to show that the dealer is at fault. Moreover as per invoice, (Ex.C2), the warranty is by company only. The complainant has placed on record job sheet, (Ex.C3), which is issued by HTC Care Service but impleaded opposite party Unitech Service Centre. There is nothing to show that opposite party No.2 is also having any liability. Opposite party No.3 is a manufacturer company. Therefore, as per terms and conditions of warranty, the company is liable regarding warranty.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty.

14. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    14-09-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member