BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.198 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.11.2015
Date of Decision : 2.9.2016.
Vidit aged 19 years son of Sh. Shekhar Chander, resident of near Rachna Palace, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa through its Prop./ Partner/ Auth. Person.
- HTC, Customer Service, Shree Sai Enterprises, Bishnoi Market, Shop No.66, 1st Floor, Sirsa now at old Civil Hospital, new M.C. Market shop No.8 Sirsa, through its Prop/ Partner. Auth. Person.
- HTC, India Pvt. Ltd. (Dopod), G-4, BPTT Park Centre, Sector 30 Near N.H.8 Gurgaon-122001, through its Managing Director/ Auth. Person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. D.R. Tantia, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte vide order dated 12.4.2016.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile of HTC company model Desire 820Q for a sum of Rs.21,078/- from opposite party no.1 on 13.1.2015. The op no.1 had given guarantee/ warranty of the mobile for one year. After sometime of purchase of the mobile, it started to create problems i.e. charging problem, auto off and hang problem and is having manufacturing defect in the electronic system basically. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and told about this problem. Then op no.1 told that this a minor problem and sent the said mobile to op no.2 who after repairing the same returned to the complainant. But within few days, the same problem again created in the mobile upon which he again visited to op no.1 but op no.1 again repaired the same. But third time also the same problem again occurred. The complainant visited to op no.1 and asked that this a manufacturing problem and asked him to replace the same or to return its sale price but op no.1 assured that now this problem will be removed and then he again repaired the same. However, about a month ago same problem again occurred and complainant visited to the shop of op no.1 and asked him to replace the mobile with new one or to return its price but op no.1 flatly refused to keep the said mobile and after that complainant visited the op no.1 time and again and has been harassed a lot. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none put their appearance and, therefore, the opposite parties were duly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.4.2016.
3. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 affidavit of Kapish Raj, bill Ex.C3 and job card Ex.C4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record carefully.
5. There is nothing to dis-believe or to dis-credit aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his own supporting affidavit Ex.C1 but also from affidavit of Kapish Raj Ex.C2 and copy of receipt of service centre dated 31.7.2015 Ex.C4. The complainant has been able to prove that there is certain defects in the mobile in question which could not be removed after repairs for three/ four times and complainant is visiting the opposite parties time and again for repair of the same. Not replacing the mobile within warranty period or not returning the amount of the mobile is certainly gross deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties, to replace the mobile hand set in question with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:2.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.