Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/463/2015

Vertika H Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Electronics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vertika H Singh

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/463/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vertika H. Singh w/o Sh. Harminder Singh, resident of House No.465, Phase-2, Mohali (Punjab).

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  TVS Electronics Limited, South Phase-7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032, through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  TVS Electronics Limited, SCO 104, First Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

 

[3]  Redington India Limited, 95, Mount Road, Chennai – 600032, through its Managing Director.

 

[4]  Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Opposite Bus Stand Subway, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR            PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	In person.
For OP Nos.1, 2 & 4	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	None

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

                Mrs. Vertika H. Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint against M/s TVS Electronics Limited & Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opposite Parties’ for the sake of brevity), alleging that she had purchased one HTC Touch T327W Desire U Black 357212 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.4 on 15.07.2013 for Rs.13,100/- vide bill Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that on 26.07.2013, the said mobile handset became dead and on approaching Opposite Party No.2, she was issued DOA certificate dated 27.07.2013, along with HTC Repair Report for getting the handset replaced through the Dealer of the Company i.e. Opposite Party No.4 (Annexure C-2 & C-3). The Opposite Party No.4 handed over the new handset to the Complainant on 03.08.2013. However, after 2-3 days of its usage even the replaced/new handset also encountered software related problems and weak network connection issues. On 08.11.2013 the Complainant visited the Service Centre of HTC Company for getting the phone repaired. The Service Centre repaired the mobile phone by upgrading its software (Annexure C-6), but the mobile phone showed no improvement in its connectivity. Thereafter, the Complainant again visited the Service Centre on 09.11.2014. This time the Service Centre changed the entire motherboard of the phone (Annexure C-7). However, when still there was no improvement, the Complainant had to purchase a new mobile handset for Rs.21,900/- on 18.10.2013 vide bill Annexure C-8. It has been averred that since the handset in question was still in warranty period, the Complainant once again approached the Service Centre of HTC (Opposite Party No.2), who changed the entire main board of the handset on 05.06.2014 (Annexure C-9). Notwithstanding this, when there was no improvement in the mobile handset, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 14.07.2014, upon the Opposite Parties (Annex.C-10). Pursuant to which, initially, the Opposite Parties offered HTC Mobile Phone Model 601, which was already an outdated model (HTC 601) and on conveying this status, they regretted for their offer and offered Model 501. As the Complainant lost her confidence in the Company, she refused to accept any kind of offer made on behalf of the Company. It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed before this Forum, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Sh. Kayum Khan, Centre Head, had appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties on 14.09.2015 and simultaneously, Sh. Ashish Sharma, Accounts Executive, had also appeared for Opposite Party No.3 and the case was adjourned to 06.10.2015 for filing of reply and evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties. However, on 06.10.2015, as none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has stated that there was no deficiency in service on its part as it had not rendered any service to the Complainant. Moreover, neither it is the manufacturer of the handset in question nor sold the same to the Complainant. Also, the Complainant has no specific allegations or grievances against the Opposite Party No.3. Denying all other allegations Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant by making repeated visits to Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 4 to get her defective mobile handset repaired, is also writ large.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4.

 

8.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4. The same is allowed. We direct the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 4, jointly & severally, to:-      

 

[a]  To refund Rs.13,100/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.7,500/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] Pay Rs.7,500/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

          The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed.

 

9.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1, 2, & 4, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs as at Sr. No. [c] above.

 

10.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

21^st December, 2015                                              

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                 Sd/-                        

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                            MEMBER