Haryana

Panchkula

CC/231/2015

kanika gautam . - Complainant(s)

Versus

venus electronics enterprises. - Opp.Party(s)

gaurav sharma.

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	231 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	20.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.07.2016

                                                                                          

Kanika Gautam D/o Sh.Babu Ram, R/o near Deluxe Marriage Palace, Bitna Road, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Venus Electronics Enterprises, # 10, Railway Road, Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula through its Prop.
2. TVS Electronics Ltd., SCO 103, Ground Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
3. HTC India Pvt. Ltd., (Corporate Office) MPS telecom Pvt. Ltd. D-55, 1^st and 2^nd floor, Okhla Industry Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020.

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             None for the Op No.1.

Defence of Ops No.2 and 3 already struck off.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The present complaint has filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that she purchased a HTC mobile handset Model Desire-816 vide bearing IMEI No.A1000037D9BEBB/352795062829758 on 12.09.2014 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.23,500/- vide bill No.13187 (Annexure C-1) with a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the set was all right and would work effectively. From the very first day of its purchase, the handset started giving problem in network and was shown indication of SIM insert. The complainant approached the Op No.1 who advised him to approach the Op No.2 for rectification of the fault as the Op No.1 only sold the handsets manufactured by the Op No.3 and the after sale services were provided by the Op No.2 only. The complainant approached the Op No.2 for rectification of fault from the handset. The Op No.2 retained the handset of the complainant and directed her to come after 10 days. After 10 days, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for collection of her handset but the Op No.2 told her that the problem still exists in the handset and advised to come up again after 10 days but to no avail. After one month, the complainant was handed over the handset by the Op No.2 disclosing that the handset was free from all faults but the problem was still existed in the handset. The complainant approached the Op No.2 who again retained the handset and directed the complainant to come after 10 days. Thereafter, the complainant was handed over the handset with the assurance that the handset was free from all sorts of defects but again on 24.08.2015, the handset started giving problem and the complainant approached the Op No.2 who retained the handset and issued job card No.QdFS15082400064 dated 24.08.2015. Thereafter, on 08.09.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for taking the delivery of the handset and the Op No.2 delivered the handset disclosing that the main board of the handset had been replaced and now there was no problem in the handset but on 08.09.2015, the handset stop working, turned blank & not turning on. The complainant requested the Op No.2 to replace the handset with new one as there was manufacturing defect in the handset but to no avail. The complainant issued legal notice dated 11.09.2015 but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that all the terms and conditions were mentioned on the cash memo that the manufacturer of the mobile set would be responsible for any kind of defect and the customer has to visited concerned care center. It is denied that the handset was not working properly from the very beginning. It is submitted that the complainant was sent to the Op No.2. It is submitted that for all kind of complaints regarding the manufacturing or any defects, the customer has to visit customer care center for grievance, dealer has nothing to do with the same. It is submitted that the legal notice dated 11.09.2015 was issued to the Op No.1 which was replied vide reply dated 29.09.2015. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Ops No.2 and 3 appeared on 04.12.2015 through their counsel and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 18.12.2015 for filing written statement. On 18.12.2015, none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.2 and 3 and the case was adjourned to 05.01.2016 for filing written statement. On 05.01.2016, also none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.2 and 3 and the case was adjourned to 14.01.2016 for filing written statement subject to last opportunity. On 14.01.2016, again none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.2 and 3 and thus the defence of the Ops No.2 and 3 was struck off vide order dated 14.01.2016.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has not filed any evidence after availing many opportunities and the evidence of the Op No.1 was closed by court order vide order dated 29.04.2016.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a HTC mobile handset Model Desire-816 vide bearing IMEI No.A1000037D9BEBB/352795062829758 on 12.09.2014 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.23,500/- vide bill No.13187 (Annexure C-1) with a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase, the Op No.1 assured the complainant that the set was all right and would work effectively. The grievance of the complainant is that the handset was giving problem in network and was shown indication of SIM insert from the very first day. As per version of the complainant, she approached the Op No.2 twice for rectification of fault from the handset and the Op No.2 handed over the handset to the complainant by stating that the handset was free from all sorts of problems but the problem still existed. Thereafter, on 24.08.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.2 for repair of handset and submitted her handset vide job sheet dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks ‘network service failure (including drop call, roaming). On 08.09.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for taking the delivery of the handset and the Op No.2 delivered the handset disclosing that the main board of the handset had been replaced which is clear from the job sheet’s column of repair recommendation that replace main board. The replacement of main board reflects that there was a manufacturing defect in the handset of the complainant. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as she was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the mobile handset.
8. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate herself but not for moving to the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset within warranty period, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i)      To replace the mobile phone with new one with same model with a warranty of one year to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.23,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of payment till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

04.07.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT