Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/416/2015

Davinder Kumar S/o Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swami Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Luxmi Rani

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 416 of 2015

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 20.11.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 11.03.2016.

Davinder Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, resident of House No. 79, Krishna Colony, near Bye Pass Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Swami Traders Kamani Chowk, Krishna Colony Yamuna Nagar through its Prop. 
2. V.S. Enterprises Authorized Service Centre of H.T.C. 12/A, Opp. NG Mall, Modal Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop.
3. H.T.C. Customer Service, TVS Electronics Ltd. South Phase-7/A, 2^nd Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-through its M.D.  

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Ms. Luxmi Rani, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              OP No.1 given up.

              Sh. Shiv Raj Saini representative for OPs No.2 & 3. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Davinder Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective mobile hand set with new or to refund the amount of Rs. 16,600/- with interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a H.T.C. Desire 626G+ Mobile bearing EMEI No. 358030061332230/ 358030061332248 for a value of Rs. 16,600/- vide cash Invoice/ Bill No. 1597 dated 29.05.2015 (Annexure C-1) carrying warranty of one year from the Op No.1 manufactured by Op No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. After few days of purchase, the mobile set become defective and complainant contacted to Op No.2 for its repair/replacement who is service centre of company and after some rectifications, set was in O.K. condition but after the few days of repair, the problem again started arising in the set in question. Complainant again on 21.7.2015 contacted the Op No.2 for its repair and told that the set in question is to be sent to company for its repair or replacement, complainant deposited the set to the Op No.2 on that date. After 15 days, Op No.2 has returned the set in question after some repair but after some time i.e. on 16.9.2015 set in question given the same problem i.e. Camera, hanging, network and heat of battery. OPs No.2 & 3 failed to repair the set in question. The complainant has made so many requests to the OPs through telephonically but of no use. As such, there is a great negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint.    

3.                     On 25.2.2016, the counsel for the complainant given up the OP No.1 being unnecessary party. However, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement stating that the OP No.2 has taken every possible step to satisfy the complainant. OPs contacted the complainant on 14^th December 2015 to resolve the issue but the complainant was adamant to refund the price of mobile set. OPs again contacted the complainant on 18^th January 2016 and requested to submit the device for repair as the device is never repaired but again the complainant was adamant on refund for the handset. It has been further mentioned that OPs offered the complainant standby handset for the time period the device will be under repair but the complainant was adamant on refund for the handset only. OPs No.2 & 3 offered 100% quality and check repairs alongwith standby handset and prayed for dismissal the complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Bill bearing No. 1597 dated 29.05.2015 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

5.                     On the other hand, representative of OPs No.2 & 3 did not tender any evidence and closed its evidence on 8.3.2016.   

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and representative of OPs No.2 & 3 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is an admitted case of the OPs that complainant purchased the mobile set of Rs. 16,600/- vide Bill No.1597 dated 29.05.2015 (Annexure C-1) from OP No.1. Further the Op No.2 & 3 have admitted in its reply that they contacted the complainant on 14.12.2015 and on 18.01.2016 and requested to submit the device for repair as the device was never repaired, however, OPs stated that the complainant was adamant on refund for the handset.  The version of the OPs No.2 & 3 is not tenable that the complainant was adamant to refund for the mobile handset. Had, the complainant not contacted with the OPs then how the OPs say that the complainant was adamant to refund for the handset. Meaning thereby that mobile phone in question of the complainant remains out of order due to one reason or other and complainant was forced to visit the service centre again and again. Now a days, mobile set has become the necessity of the human beings and without the mobile set, a person feels himself as handicapped. Further, the OP No.2 totally failed to file any evidence or submit any affidavit of the Manager/Mechanic of the Service Centre that mobile set in question was not having any manufacturing defect whereas the version of the complainant is duly supported by his affidavit as well as copy of bill.

8.                     Further the complainant has lodged his complaint with Op No.2 within a short span of time and also filed the present complaint within a period of 5-6 months. Hence, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 and we have no option except allow the complaint of complainant.   

9.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops to refund an amount of Rs. 13,280/- being 80% of the total cost of the mobile set to the complainant within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, subject to deposit of old mobile set with OP No.2, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the defaulted period. Ops are further directed to pay Rs 1000/- as compensation for mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:11.03.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER