Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/207/2016

Rahul .M.Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager HTC, Cutomer Care - Opp.Party(s)

J.Paulraj, A.Vijayakumar

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   14.06.2016

                                                                        Date of Order :   25.04.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., PGDCLP                    : MEMBER I

            

C.C.NO.207/2016

TUESDAY THIS  25^TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Rahul M. Jain,

S/o. Madanlal Jain,

No.52, Thatha Muthiappan Street,

Sowcarpet,

Chennai 600 079.                                         ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

HTC Customer Care,

HTC, Towers,

No.41, G.S.T. Road,

Annasalai,

Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

 

2. The Service Incharge,

TVS. Electronics Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Gemini Parson Complex,

Annasalai, Chennai 600 006.

 

3. The Manager,

Rajendra Electronics,

No.11/20, Kasi Chetty Lane,

Sathrasala Complex,

Ground Floor,

Chennai 600 079.                                            ..Opposite parties

 

For the Complainant                 :    M/s. J.Paulraj & another    

For the opposite parties 1 to 3   :    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act  to seek direction  to refund  the cost price of the mobile phone to the tune of Rs.24,500/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, physical inconvenience and hardship  and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant has purchased a Mobile phone namely  HTC Desire 820 Dual Sim from the 3^rd opposite party on 2.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- and its IMEI No.354920061896115, under the terms and conditions of the said sale, the 3^rd opposite party had undertake to render free service for one year from the date of purchase of mobile phone.  

2.     That after about 11 months of using the said mobile phone, there was symptom of speaker malfunction on the mobile phone.  Therefore the complainant approached the HTC service centre, the 2^nd opposite party herein for seeking service of the mobile phone.  The complainant states that initially the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party have agreed and assured to repair the speaker malfunction.  Hence the complainant handed over the mobile phone into the 2^nd opposite party for service on 28.123.2015 within the warrant period.     

3.     After two days the 2^nd opposite party has informed that they are unable to repair the complainant’s mobile phone and also there was a defects in mother board, LCM, camera and asked  a sum of Rs.16,305/- towards charges.  In fact, the opposite party-2 had received the mobile phone from the complainant only after due inspection on 28.12.2015 for service and in the service report also reflect the defect as speaker malfunctioning.   The said act of the 2^nd opposite party was given shock and surprise to the complainant.  Inspite of several requests and personal attempts to the 2^nd opposite party had never cared about the complainant’s request.    The opposite party-2 neither repair nor return the mobile phone but otherwise the opposite party-2 stated that to pay the amount of Rs.16,305/- the mobile cannot be return.   Immediately the complainant registered a complaint to the customer care.

4.     The acts and conduct of the 2^nd opposite party is sheer negligence and total disregard to the responsibility and sense of duty and therefore the complainant underwent mental agony and untold suffering.   Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice to all of the opposite parties on 29.2.2015  for compensation.  The said notice was duly received by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on 4.3.2016.   Inspite of receiving the legal notice of the complainant, the opposite parties have not chosen to give the effective reply.    The act of the opposite parties amounts for deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint is filed.

5.     Inspite of notice received by the opposite parties 1 to 3,   the opposite parties have not chosen to appear before this Forum.    Hence they were set exparte.

6.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. 

7.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite     parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

8.       Written arguments submitted by the complainant.  In addition to that oral arguments also adduced by the complainant.    Though opposite parties-1 to 3 remained exparte, this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials.

9.      POINT NO.1       

          According to the averments of the complaint as well as proof affidavit submitted by the complainant, it is learnt that the complainant had purchased a Mobile phone namely HTC Desire 820 Dual sim from the 3^rd opposite party on 2.1.2015 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- through Ex.A1 cash bill.    At the time of purchase of the said mobile phone, the opposite party-3 had undertaken to render free service for one year from the date of purchase of the mobile phone.   Such being so, after the lapse of 11 months of using the said mobile phone, the problem occurred to the mobile phone, and therefore the complainant had approached the opposite party-1 and in turn the complainant was asked to approach the opposite party-2.   Immediately the opposite party-2 received and acknowledged the same on 28.12.2015 i.e. within the warranty period.   The service report is marked as Ex.A2.  

10.    It is further learnt that after two days, the opposite party-2 has contacted the complainant and informed that they are unable to repair the mobile phone since there was some other problems and the asked to pay   Rs.16,305/- towards  charges which fully contra to the Ex.A2 service report.   It is further seen from the evidence of the complainant that at the time of handing over the mobile phone to the opposite party-2 for service.    The only defect is that “speaker malfunction” and therefore he insisted of opposite party-2 to pay charges of Rs.16,305/- is arbitrary one.  

11.    Further, on perusal of the proof affidavit, it is narrated that in spite of repeated requests and personal attempts made by the complainant, the opposite parties have not come forward to repair the mobile phone nor return the mobile phone.   Further the 2^nd opposite party insisted to pay a sum of Rs.16,305/- towards charges.  Therefore, the complainant had issued legal notice Ex.A3 to the opposite parties for compensation committed by them and the same was received by opposite parties 2 & 3.  The acknowledgment for the same is marked as Ex.A4 and the return cover for the opposite party-1 is marked as Ex.A5.

 

12.    In such circumstances, on careful perusal of the evidence and documents Ex.A1 to  Ex.A5, it is crystal clear that the purchase of the alleged mobile phone Ex.A1 and handing over the mobile phone to the opposite party-2 for repair through opposite party-1 has been proved.   Further it is seen from Ex.A2 that the defect noted is only speaker malfunction ringtone speaker white blue.  But  per contra, the claiming of Rs.16,305/- towards charges for repair by the opposite parties are seems to be a questionable one which is that too within the warranty period of one year.   Moreover in spite of the complainant issued legal notice by  clearly mentioning about the alleged facts Ex.A3 notice to the opposite parties, they have not come forward to send any reply.   Furthermore, after filing of this complaint before this forum though notice was served to the opposite parties, they have not chosen to file the written version within the stipulated time as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act and thereby they were set exparte.     From these facts it is clearly seen that, the opposite parties have not appeared before this forum or to rebut the evidence to the complainant.   Therefore, it is crystal clear that the averments of the complaint have been proved and the same can be accepted one.   

 

13.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this forum can easily, come to the conclusion that the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts  for  deficiency of service  and thereby which certainly caused mental agony and hardship as averred in the complaint and the same has been proved by the complainant with available evidence.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

14.    POINT NO.2: -

As per decision arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled  to get the refund of cost price of complaint mentioned mobile phone of Rs.24,500/- along with reasonable compensation and cost towards litigation expense.    Thus point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,500/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the complaint mentioned mobile phone and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship  due to deficiency of service on the part of them and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  as cost of the complaint to the complainant.  

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said mounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.  

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  25^th  day  of  April  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                        PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 2.1.2015    - Copy of Cash bill.

Ex.A2-  28.12.2015 – Copy of Service Report.

Ex.A3- 29.2.2016  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Acknowledgment card.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Return Cover.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:

.. Nil..      (Exparte)

 

MEMBER-I                                                                        PRESIDENT.