BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 300 of 2018.
Date of Institution : 10.12.2018.
Date of Decision : 13.09.2022.
Rajan Vasuja son of Shri Ramesh Kumar, resident of Kanganpur Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mob:- 99291-49400. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sirat Mobile Hub, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa through its proprietor/ authorized person.
2. M/S Sai Enterprises, HTC Mobile Care, 1st Floor, Amit Gun House, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa through its authorized person.
3. HTC India Private Limited, (POPOD), G-4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurugaon- 122001, through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 to 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that op no.1 is a retail mobile shop and is dealer of op no.3 and op no.2 is service centre/ customer care of op no.3. On 26.12.2017 complainant had purchased a mobile handset of HTC company Model Desire 10 Pro for a sum of Rs.27,500/- vide bill no.443 dated 26.12.2017 from op no.1 and op no.1 had given one year guarantee of the mobile in question. That just after few months of its purchase, the complainant noticed that mobile set becomes defective and stopped working due to heating problem. The complainant contacted to op no.1 who advised him to contact op no.2 and op no.2 checking the mobile and admitted that problems occurred due to manufacturing defects and then op no.2 returned the mobile to complainant with assurance that now it will work correctly and in future he will not face such kind of problems. It is further averred that complainant had faced same problems several times and every time on contact to op no.2, it gave same false assurances and returned the mobile handset to the complainant but the defects were never removed by op no.1 or op no.2. That continuous negligence of ops no.1 and 2 caused so much mental tension and harassment to the complainant and about few months back when complainant was using the internet facility on the mobile, the battery of the same blasted due to heating problem and complainant was shocked and very hardly survived from the blast. That when complainant made complaint to op no.2 in this regard, they put fault on complainant for blast of the battery of mobile and denied to do anything. Thereafter also, complainant contacted and requested to ops no.1 and 2 so many times for resolving his problems but they did not pay any heed on the lawful demand of complainant rather started misbehaving with him. Hence, this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Ops no.1 and 2 did not appear despite due service of notices and as such ops no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte. Op no.3 was ordered to be served through whatsapp number on the application of complainant but despite service of notice through whatsapp number provided by complainant, none appeared on behalf of op no.3 and as such op no.3 was also proceeded against exparte.
4. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and cash/ credit memo Ex.C1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant contended that after 2/3 months of purchase, the mobile in question started giving problems and there was display problem which was not removed either by op no.1 or by service centre of the company and even the battery of the mobile was blasted and therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file cash/ credit memo dated 26.12.2017 as Ex.C1, the perusal of which reveals that complainant had purchased mobile in question for a sum of Rs.27,500/- from op no.1. The complainant has also placed on file HTC service report dated 22.2.2018 which reveals that during warranty period there was no display in the mobile in question and mobile was handed over to op no.2 service centre of op no.3 for repair. The ops have failed to appear before this Commission to contest the present complaint and opted to be proceeded against exparte. There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of complainant. The pleadings and evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Since the mobile in question developed defect in the warranty period and even battery of the mobile was blasted in the warranty period, therefore, op no.3 being manufacturer of the mobile was under legal obligation either to replace the mobile in question or to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant but op no.3 has failed to do so and therefore has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Since mobile went out of order after three months of its purchase and battery of the mobile was blasted and it was not made defect free by op no.1 and op no.2, therefore, op no.3 is liable to replace mobile set or to make refund the cost of the mobile and op no.1 who has sold defective mobile to the complainant shall pay composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua ops no.1 and 3 and direct the opposite party no.3 either to replace the mobile in question of complainant with a new one of same price or to make refund of the amount of Rs.27,500/- i.e. price of the mobile to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.3 will be liable to pay the said amount of Rs.27,500/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period, failing which op no.1 will also be liable to pay interest @6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant from the date of this order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 13.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
(JK)
