Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/517/2014

Sheena Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL Info Systems - Opp.Party(s)

In person

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/517/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	05/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sheena Chaudhary d/o Sh. Balbir Singh Chaudhary, resident of H.No. 1118, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1.   HCL Info Systems, SCO No.66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.   Anmol Watches & Electronics Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

3.   Blackberry, Office No.76, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director/ Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Blackberry 9360 mobile handset in the name of her brother namely, Ravi Chaudhary, from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.17,620/- on 20.02.2013 vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. It has been averred that soon after its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving problems and was deposited with the Opposite Party No.1 vide job sheet on 20.02.2013 (Annexure C-2). Even though the mobile handset was in warranty, yet the Opposite Party No.1 returned back the same after charging Rs.390/- from the Complainant as inspection charges, management, repair and maintenance charges vide delivery Challan Annexure C-3. Thereafter, after about 10 months, the above said handset developed charging problem, and it was again deposited with the Opposite Party No.1 and a job sheet (Annexure C-4 dated 14.02.2014) was prepared mentioning that “Due to component damage, found inside, handset, so returned without repair as physical damage does not cover under warranty”. It has been also averred that in a reply to the e-mail of the brother of the Complainant, one Ms. Renu replied the mail dated 28.02.2014 mentioning that “During diagnosis (ELS)Engineer found internal component missing and the same updated to the customer on the same day”. The Complainant submitted that she had visited the Opposite Party No.1 on the very first day and thereafter, the handset never gave any problem, and when the Complainant visited the Customer Care for the second time after about 10 months, the mobile handset was working properly. So, if any part was missing, Opposite Party No.1 was liable for the same because it had repaired the handset earlier on 20.02.2013. It has been alleged that after 14.2.2014 the Opposite Party No1 did not entertain any Complaint of the Complainant and lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other on the ground that some internal component of the mobile was missing. A copy of the delivery challan dated 14.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure C-4 with the Complaint. Thereafter, the Complainant repeatedly approached the Opposite Party No.1 through e-mails dated 27.02.2014, 28.02.2014, 14.02.2014 and also sent registered post, but all in vain (Annex. C-5 to C-11).     When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 19.09.2014 and 04.11.2014 respectively.  

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that on the first day of purchase itself the grill of the mobile handset was damaged by the Complainant, which was repaired by answering Opposite Party on chargeable basis as per the policy guidelines of Opposite Party No.3, which was paid by the Complainant without any resentment. It has been asserted that thereafter the product worked perfectly up till 14.2.2014 and was being used by the Complainant.  Once the phone was in possession of the Complainant, no liability of any sought of damage or missing of part can be fixed upon the answering Opposite Party. Since the product in question was suffering from physical damage which was not covered under warranty, the same was returned without carrying out repair as the Complainant denied to pay for the repair of the product in question. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.

 

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

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and Sh. Arjun Grover, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 being ex-parte) and have also perused the record, along with the written submisions filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.  

 

7.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 the bill dated 20.2.2013 that the Complainant had purchased Blackberry 9360 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.17,620/-, with warranty of one year. Annexure C-2 is the job-sheet dated 20.02.2013 vide which the handset in question was repaired by the Opposite Party No.1 on the day of its purchase due to reported fault “Audio Distortion/Speaker Problem”. As per the case of the Complainant, the handset in question worked well for 10 months. Annexure C-4 is the Delivery Challan dated 14.02.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 with comments “Due to component damage found inside handset, so return without repair as physical damage doesn’t cover under warranty”. Annexure C-3 is the Invoice cum Delivery Challan dated 21.02.2014 vide which the Complainant was charged Rs.393/- for inspection of the defective mobile handset by the Opposite Party No.1 (Service Centre). Annexure C-5 to Annexure C-11 are the various e-mail communications between the Opposite Party No.1 and the brother of the Complainant regarding his grievance for charging money for inspection within the warranty period and with a request to repair the set under warranty. According to the Complainant, she was reported vide Annexure C-4 that “Due to component damage found inside handset, so return without repair as physical damage doesn’t cover under warranty”, but one e-mail dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure C-6) again sent by Opposite Party No.1 has mention as “During diagnose (ELS) engineer found “Internal components missing” and the same updated to the customer on same day”. It has been urged by the Complainant that since service was conducted by the Opposite Party No.1 always, therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is responsible for the missing part as mentioned in the e-mail dated 28.2.2014. 

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 is that as and when the Complainant approached it, with any Complaint, the same was attended. The mobile handset in question was deposited to it on 14.2.2014, which was returned to the Complainant without repair, as the Complainant herself denied for the repair of the product in question. It has been urged by the Opposite Party No.1 that the damage being physical could not be repaired under warranty. 

 

9.     It is important to note here that Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

10.     It is worthwhile to add here that, an application dated 16.04.2015, was made by the Opposite Party No.1, for seeking a report from the expert by way of procedure as laid down under the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and it was also prayed to send the product in question to the laboratory/ expert for seeking a report for proper adjudication of the matter. The said application was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 16.04.2015, and an opportunity was granted to the parties to suggest the name of person(s) fit for appointing as Technical Expert. However, during arguments on the said application, the Complainant has stated that she does not want to send her mobile handset to an Expert, at that stage. After scrutinizing the entire material placed below us, we are of the concerted opinion that since deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the Opposite Parties, therefore, no expert opinion is necessary, for the adjudication of the instant case.  

 

11.     In our considered opinion, evidently, the handset was deposited with Opposite Party No.1 on 14.02.2014 i.e. 06 days prior to the expiry of the warranty, but the Opposite Party No.1 smartly charged Rs.393/- by delaying the inspection of the same till 21.02.2014 as per Annexure C-3. Further, both the documents Annexure C-4 dated 14.2.2014 and e-mail dated 28.2.2014 (Annexure C-6) are the documents of Opposite Party No.1 only, but it has nowhere explained the reasons for the contradictory statements made by it. Though the mobile handset in question worked well for 10 months without any major problem, but we cannot deny the possibility of any component missing during its manufacturing/ previous repair done by the Opposite Party No.1. The act of the Opposite Party No.1 for charging for the inspection of the defective handset within the warranty period and non-explaining of the term internal damage or component missing is not only deficiency in service but unfair trade practice as well.     

 

12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To repair the handset in question of the Complainant, free of charge, and make it fully functional, with extended warranty of six months.

 

[b]  To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;

 

 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.17,620/-, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.5,000/- as in sub-para [b] above with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint, till realization.  

 

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

Announced

09^th September, 2015                                

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER