Delhi

East Delhi

CC/808/2013

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TELE TALK - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 808/13

 

Shri Ajay Kumar

R/o D-39, Street No. 8

Mandawali, Unceper

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Tele Talk

R-50, Manglam Building

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. H.T.C. Service City

Office No. 201, 2^nd Floor

Sagar Plaza Distt. Centre

 

3. H.T.C. India Pvt. Ltd.

G-4, BPTP Park Centre

Sec- 30, Near NH-8

Gurgaon, Haryana-122001                                                                 ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 18.09.2013

Judgment Reserved on:18.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.01.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ajay Kumar has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Tele Talk (OP-1), HTC Service City   (OP-2) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) for deficiency in services. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased HTC mobile phone on 28.06.2013 for a sum of Rs. 16,300/- vide Tin no. 07020215801.  It is stated that in the month of June, 2013, the mobile created problem as “Touch Broken, Soft Key Ico Pro”.  He immediately visited the office of HTC service city (OP-2) and deposited the handset vide job sheet no. DEL004-0004767.  At the time of depositing, the respondent told the complainant the service charges of Rs. 1000 to 1200 and was assured to get the handset repaired within 2-3 days.  On 04.07.2013, when he enquired the status of his mobile, another 2 days’ time was taken by respondent.  On 08.07.2013, when he visited the service centre, he was shocked to know that the repair cost of the mobile was stated to be Rs. 8,500 to 9,000/-.  The complainant told that his mobile was under warranty on which the respondent did not respond. 

It has been stated that the complainant has not been handed over the mobile set after repair.  The acts of OP have been stated to be deficient as well as illegal one.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for refund the cost of mobile amounting to Rs. 16,300/- or repair the mobile under warranty; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and            Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.         Notice of the complaint was given to OPs.  They did not put their appearance inspite of service; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         In support of his complaint, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit in which he has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. 

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant as well as Counsel for OP.  From perusal of the evidence on record, which has gone un-rebutted as well as the documents, it is noticed that complainant purchased handset from Tele Talk on 11.11.2012 for a sum of Rs. 16,300/- from OP-1.  Service report of HTC Service City (OP-2) of dated 29.06.2013 show the handset being deposited with “Display Malfunctioning”.

            The service report also show that the handset was under warranty.  The fact that handset was under warranty and the complainant has not received the same after service, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of HTC Service City (OP-2) as well as HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), the manufacturer.  The fact that handset has not been serviced and repaired by HTC Service City    (OP-2) as they have been deficient in their service, no liability can be fastened on Tele Talk (OP-1) as they are only the seller.  HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) was vicariously liable for the acts of HTC Service City (OP-2).  Therefore, HTC Service City (OP-2) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) both are liable for the deficiency of  services. 

            In view of the above, we direct HTC Service City (OP-2) and HTC India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) to handover the mobile set of complainant after its satisfactory service within a period of 30 days.  We further direct that if the handset was not handed over to the complainant within a period of 30 days with one year extended warranty, the complainant shall be entitled to have the cost of Rs. 16,300/- with 6% interest from the date of its purchase till its realization.  We further award compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, which includes the cost of litigation.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.         

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                          Member    

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President