Complainant Raman Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to provide the New HTC Mobile Phone Model HTC Desire 826 DS since the mobile in question is defective one and defect has not been removed from it in spite of several efforts. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased HTC Desire 826 D/s 357290060900053 on 10.05.2015 for his personal use. After 3 months of its purchase, the Camera of the mobile in question has become out of functioning thereafter, he approached the opposite party no.1 who is authorized Service Provider of the HTC Company and requested him to got rectify the problem occurred in the mobile in question, but they refused to provide service by making lame excuse that the problem should be got rectified by the opposite parties no.2 and 3. Thereafter he approached to the opposite party no.3 who kept the mobile phone with them and returned the mobile phone to him after about ten days. At that time, the opposite party no.3 has removed the defect, by making rectification in Front Camera of the mobile phone in question, but did not remove the defect from the back Camera of the Mobile in question. He has again approached to the opposite party no.1 who again send him to the opposite party no.3. At that time, the opposite party no.3 has removed the defects from the Mobile in question and both the Cameras i.e. Front and back Cameras started working but after about one month both Cameras i.e. Front and Back cameras have again became disorder and it do not work. He has next pleaded that now again he has repeatedly been visiting the office of the opposite party no.1 with the request to remove the defects occurred in the Mobile in question, but they have refused to do so. Due to the act and conduct of opposite parties it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; this Ld.Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint; there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.1 is authorized service provider of HTC Company but the complainant never approached the opposite party no.1. The alleged false and frivolous story has been made only to make the jurisdiction of this Ld.Forum. Even the contents of the complaint shows that the mobile has been purchased from Chandigarh. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Notices were issued to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been served through registered A.D. but none had come present on their behalf despite repeated calls. Hence, opposite parties no.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.2.2016.       

5.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

6.     Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Sh.Vinod Nayyar, Proprietor of Nayyar Enterprises Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while (at the same time) taking the due judicial-notice of the OP2 & OP3 venders’ intentional ‘ex-parte’ participation, in spite of the ‘proven’ summon-service through the prescribed ‘Registered AD’ post. Although, it has been a settled law that a titled party’s intentional absence/ex-parte participation gives rise to the judicial but discretionary presumption that the ex-parte/absentee(s) litigant(s) have no defense to prosecute; still, we have provided a judicious opportunity to the ex-parte absentees by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/ base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act.

8.       We find that the present complaint has arisen as a result of the alleged repeated ‘refusal’ by the OP1 HTC Mobile Service Centre to repair the ‘Desire 826 D/S’ HTC Make mobile hand-set within the Warranty Period as purchased (Ex.C2) from the OP2 Vendor on 10.05.2015 vide Cash Memo # 1053 for Rs.24,100/-. Somehow, the OP3 Service Centre provided the requisite repairs to the defective Mobile but it again went out of order and the OP1 service provider was allegedly re-approached to provide service-repairs but the same were again refused to afford prompt to the present complaint.

9.       The OP1 service provider in its written reply duly supported by the necessary affidavit Ex.OP1/1 has point blank refused the alleged visits by the complainant for ‘service-repairs’ to his Mobile Set nor the complainant has produced any other cogent evidence to support the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the titled opposite parties. We further find that the complainant produced Ex.C2 (purchase Invoice) has not even been drawn in his name and the related Job card Ex.C3 has been drawn in the name of one Deepak and not in the name of the present complainant who has also somehow failed to produce the necessary Warranty Card (in his name) pertaining to the HTC mobile-set, in question. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complainant has not been able to statutorily establish any of the allegations as made out by him in the present complaint. 

10.     In the light of the all above, we find that the titled opposite parties have not been proved to have statutorily infringed any of the complainant’s consumer rights as alleged by him in the present complaint and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the same with however no orders as to costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President                                                                                      

ANNOUNCED:                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

June 13, 2016                                                  Member

*MK*