Order dictated by:

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1. Vinod Kumar Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant purchased one mobile HTC Desire 826 duel Sim Brown from opposite party No.1 worth Rs. 22,500/- vide invoice No 237 dated 19.2.2016. Opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of mobile phone,  it was assured by opposite party No.1 that the mobile phone is having various latest features. As such the complainant purchased the said costly mobile. In the month of July 2016 i.e. during the warranty period of one year, the aforesaid mobile phone developed some manufacturing defect . The complainant visited the authorized service centre and handed over the said defective mobile set and made complaint that the set has become totally bend. Thereafter the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 many a times and requested them to hand over the mobile set, but opposite party No.3 has put off the matter on one pretext or the other and till date the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant. Rather the opposite party No.3 clearly told that the set was beyond repair and cannot be set right due to manufacturing defect in the said mobile set. The complainant also visited opposite party No.1 and requested them to replace the said defective mobile with new one but to no avail. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

1. Opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile with a new one or in the alternative to return the price thereof i.e. Rs. 22500/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from date of purchase till payment;
2. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- on account of mental sufferings, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not put in appearance despite service as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel Sh. Munish Kohli,Advocate but written version on behalf of opposite party No.3 not filed despite lapse of 45 days , as such opposite party No.3 has forfeited its right to file written version.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person as well as ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       Complainant has vehemently contended that he purchased one mobile HTC Desire 826 duel Sim Brown worth Rs. 22500/- vide Invoice No. 237 dated 19.2.2016 from opposite party No.1, copy of bill/invoice accounts for Rs. C-2 on record. It has further been contended by the complainant that the mobile handset in dispute got damaged in the month of July 2016 and the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 and reported defects occurred in the mobile hand set, who issued job sheet by mentioning the defects in the mobile hand set i.e. “Main Camera malfunction, Front camera malfunction/Receiver not working , sound time volume very slow, processing slow” , copy of the job sheet is Ex.C-3 on record. Thereafter complainant visited opposite party No.3 many a times but opposite party No.3 was putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Rather opposite party No.3 told the complainant that the mobile handset was beyond repair as it was having certain manufacturing/inherent defects. The said mobile set is lying with opposite party No.3.

6.       On the other hand ld.counsel for the opposite party No.3 has vehemently contended that the complainant has left the mobile hand set and never turned up to take delivery of the mobile handset. The complainant was called several times , but he did not attend the calls made by the official of opposite party No.3. It has further been contended on behalf of opposite party No.3 that the defects occurred in the mobile hand set were not cureable as the mobile hand set has been bent down due to the negligence of the complainant.

7.       However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that complainant Vinod Kumar purchased one mobile HTC Desire 826 duel Sim Brown worth Rs. 22500/- vide Invoice No. 237 dated 19.2.2016 from opposite party No.1, copy of bill/invoice accounts for Rs. C-2 on record. The mobile handset in dispute got damaged in the month of July 2016 and the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile handset in dispute to opposite party No.3. But opposite party No.3 did not return the mobile handset after repair and rather told the complainant that the mobile handset is having certain manufacturing/inherent defects and the same cannot be set right.  The said mobile set is lying with opposite party No.3. The arguments advanced by ld.counsel for the opposite party No.3 is not supportive with any documents because the right of opposite party No.3 has been forfeited at the initial stage .

8.       From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case . As such the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the cost price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs.22,500/- to the complainant. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses are assessed at  Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order  ; failing which complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.1.2017

/R/