Punjab

Sangrur

CC/230/2016

Mohit Chawala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop./Partner - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Grover

20 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 230                                                                                       

                                                                      Instituted on:  01.02.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    20.05.2016

 

Mohit Chawla son of Shri Ram Parkash #95/8 Marla, Model Town, Gurgaon.   

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.      Chhabra Communications, Opp. Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

2.      HTC India Pvt. Limited Corporate Office, G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Sector -30 Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.    

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT       :    Shri Ashish Grover,  Advocate                          

 

FOR  THE  OPP. PARTIES       :     Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Mohit Chawla complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile phone Model HTC Desire 620-G  vide invoice number 9554 dated 09/02/2015  for an amount of Rs.14500/-  from OP No.1 under  warranty. From the very beginning, the said mobile set is not working properly. There was problem of hanging  and it  did not catch the network. The Battery backup of the said mobile set is very poor.  The complainant visited  the OPs  then the OPs started to make lame excuse that there may be more use of mobile set so that the battery discharged earlier and mobile hangs due to software and game installed in the mobile set and advised to change the network provider.  After six months  of the purchase  the mobile set started to give another problem of restart/ reboot automatically which disturb the complainant too much   and creates problems. The complainant also approached the OP No.2 who returned the said mobile set saying that the problems have been rectified.  The complainant again visited the OP No.2  but OP No.2 said that  he has made every efforts to  remove the problems but mobile set  has manufacturing defect  which cannot be rectified. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the amount of Rs.14500/-  as price amount of mobile set along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs did not appear and as such OPs were proceeded exparte on 31.03.2016.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of HTC Desire 620-G  from OP No.1  on 09.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.14500/- which is evident from  invoice  number 9554 dated 09.02.2015 which is Ex.C-4 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that from the very beginning of the purchase of the mobile set in question, it started giving problems of hanging, networking and battery backup for which the complainant approached the OPs but the defects could not be rectified and ultimately care centre  refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant and said that he has made every efforts to remove the problems but the mobile set has manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified. To prove his version, the complainant has produced report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh  proprietor of Singh Connectivity  Dhuri Road Sunami Gate, Sangrur  along with  his affidavit Ex.C-2 wherein it has been stated  that  he retained the mobile for two days and used the same. The mobile was given the problem of restart/ reboot automatically. He got checked the said mobile phone and found that the mobile set has manufacturing defect and the same problem is not curable one.  The OPs have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to refund an amount of Rs.14500/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                May 20, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President