Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/54/2015

Vinay.S, S/o.Suseel.D, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, HTC, TVS Electronic Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Ramesh Kumar -com

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.11.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 23^rd  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.54/2015

 

Vinay. S.,

S/o Suseel.D.,

No.59/19, Ellaiamman Koil Street,

Vannandurai, Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager HTC,

TVS Electronic Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Gemini Parsan Complex,

Annan Salai,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2.The Manager,

HTC India Pvt. Ltd.,

G-4, BPTP, Park Centre,

Sector 30, Near NH-8,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.

 

3.The Manager,

Jain Electronics,

83, A.P.Road, Choolai,

Chennai – 600 112.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s,V.S.Ramesh Kumar, M.Sivaraman

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                  : Mr.S.Deepan, Authorised Person

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                 : Mr. J.Srinivasan, Authorised Person

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                       : M/s.M.Arvind Kumar, A.Jyothi Rani, 

                                                                   

                                                                  (2^nd & 3^rd  opposite parties  were set Ex

                                                                   Parte on (24.04.2017)  for non filing of  

                                                                   proof affidavit)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of HTC Desire XC Mobile Phone. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer. The complainant purchased HTC Desire XC Mobile Phone on 18.04.2014 from the 3^rd opposite party on payment of Rs.16,500/-. The warranty for the said product is one year from the date of purchase.

          2. Within three months from the date of purchase, the mobile developed into problems. The complainant has taken the mobile to the 1^st opposite party on 28.07.2014 for service. He had examined the mobile and replaced the LCD screen.

After four days again problems arose and the 1^st opposite party replaced the mother board. After few days there were many problems and the mobile became in dead condition. The 1^st opposite party refused to service the mobile and hence the complainant suffered with mental agony. On 30.01.2015 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties asking for repayment, as they have sold the defective mobile. Selling such a defective mobile, the opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.    

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party/authorized service centre is bound by the warranty policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party. He had replaced the LCD, touch window and Bezel in the complainant mobile and handed over to him on 31.07.2014. Again the complainant submitted the mobile for repairs on 13.08.2014 and this opposite party replaced the main board.

          4. On 23.09.2014 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for repairs to the LED indicator was not working and this opposite party found that the unit has physical damages due to careless handling of the said mobile and for much physical damage warranty not covered. The complainant was asked to get repair on payment basis and however he refused for the same.  On 07.04.2015, though the complainant is not entitled to, the 2^nd opposite party offered free of cost repairs and the said offer was rejected and the complainant demanded refund of the amount. Again the 2^nd opposite party offered one – to – one replacement with three months warranty and that was also not accepted. This opposite party being a service centre, he has no authority to deviate from the warranty conditions and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party submits that he had offered free of cost repairs of the device, because the device was damaged internally even though for such damage was not covered under the warranty. Further he had also offered replacement of device that was also not accepted. The 3^rd opposite party also at his best to satisfy the complainant extended the warranty for three months. Having the complainant has not accepted the offer made by this opposite party; the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party is only a dealer of mobile phone, recharges and electronic goods, carrying on business.  He does not know what was transpired between the complainant and the other opposite parties. He is no way connected to the problems alleged to have faced by the complainant. This opposite party sold the mobile phone as a fully packed piece without even opening the same and he do not know if there is any defect in the product manufactured by the company. Hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

 

 

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of HTC Desire XC Mobile Phone and the 1^st opposite party is the authorized is the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer and  the complainant purchased HTC Desire XC Mobile Phone on 18.04.2014 from the 3^rd opposite party on payment of Rs.16,500/- under Ex.A1 bill and the  warranty for the said product is one year from the date of purchase and  the  complainant taken the mobile to the 1^st opposite party on 28.07.2014 as the same developed some problem and the 1^st opposite party replaced the LCD, touch window and Bezel and handed over the said mobile to the complainant by issuing Ex.A5 service job sheet.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties are that again within four days there was some other problem and the 1^st opposite party changed the mother board and even after that within few days the mobile was turned into dead condition and when he approached the 1^st opposite party, he refused to repair the same and hence on 30.01.2015 he sent Ex.A2 letter  to the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile and failed to repair the same, hence he filed this complaint.

          10. The 1^st opposite party admits in his written version that on 13.08.2014 the complainant approached for repairs and he had replaced the main board with the support of 2^nd opposite party and again on 23.09.2014 for repairs to the LED indicator and the same was refused to repair as the damage was caused due to             careless handling and however on 07.04.2015 and 10.04.2015, the 2^nd opposite party offered free of cost repairs.  The 2^nd opposite party also accepted in his written version that he had offered for replacement of device. The problems arose in the mobile was accepted by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. However, there is no evidence to accept that what kind of damage caused in the mobile and thereby the inner parts were damaged. Within three months of purchase replaced the LCD, touch window and Bezel and after few days the main board was replaced and after few days the LED indicator was not working, and they have also offered for replacement of device  irresistibly leads to the conclusion that the product is having defect which could not be repaired at all. The 3^rd opposite party pleaded in his written version that he cannot know if there is any defect in the product manufactured by the company. The statement of the 3^rd opposite party is also a circumstance that at the time of manufacturing only the product is having defect. Hence the 1^st opposite party/service centre unable to repair the product and also offered on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party for replacement, we conclude that the mobile  phone is having inherent manufacturing defect and therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.

11. The 3^rd opposite party is only a dealer who had sold the product to the complainant/customer what he had received from the manufacturer and therefore he had not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

          The offer made by the opposite parties 1 & 2 for replacement of the product was rejected by the complainant. As the product is having manufacturing defect, the complainant seeks refund of the cost of the mobile is acceptable and therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 can be directed to refund the cost of the mobile, a sum of Rs.16,500/- to him and simultaneously the complainant has to hand over  the mobile to any one of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Due to defective mobile used by the complainant, he has suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the mobile to the Complainant and the complainant shall simultaneously return the mobile to the any one of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and  also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses . The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of November 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.04.2014                   Bill with Warranty

Ex.A2 dated 30.01.2015                   Letter of the complainant

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A4 dated 18.04.2014                   Warranty Card

Ex.A5 dated 28.07.2014                   Service job sheet

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                …… NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT