Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/345

PARMOD KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission,WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

C C No. 345/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SH.  PARMOD KUMAR GUPTA

S/O Late Sh. Y.K. Gupta

R/o 1499, Sector-21,

Gurugram(Haryana)                                        ……...COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

HCL SERVICE LTD.                                       

(HTC Service Centre)

¼, Najafgarh Road,

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018                                          …… Respondent

 

Galaxy World

Shop no. 154, G.F. Municipal Market,

Gaffar Market, Kami Bagh,

New Delhi-110005                                                            …… Respondent

         

HTC India Pvt. Ltd.,

Corporate Office, 108, Silokhra Road,

Vijay Vihar, Jalvayu Vihar,

Sector-30, Gurugram (HR)                                                 …… Respondent

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:          DATE OF DECISION      :

26.08.2018 12.09.2022 22.09.2022

 

Ms Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms Richa Jindal, Member

Mr Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Order passed by Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

 

ORDER

1. That the complainant has filed a present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows :

1. Thecomplainant had purchased a mobile HTC Desire 628, IMEI No. 355167081715409, Invoice/cash Memo/ Bill No. 4229, dated 02.04.2017, Book No. 43, of Rs. 12,000/- with one year warranty from OP 2 seller manufactured by OP-3.

 

2. On 13.07.2017 the complainant kept his mobile in his back pocket but felt that the said mobile became heated up suddenly and the battery of said mobile burnt. The complainant went to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 referred the complaint to OP No. 1 as per complaint OP-3 on 14.07.2017 the complainant went to OP No. 1 to get this fault removed and respondent No. 1 received said mobile set alongwith burnt battery from the complainant vide complaint report/slip dated 14.7.2012 with comment “ Device Blast” and further the respondent No. 1 assured the complainant that the said mobile will be handed over to the complainant very soon after repairing the same.

 

3. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of respondent No. I several times, but respondent No. 1 neither repaired nor replaced the said mobile. The complainant also visited to respondent No. 2 and complaint about  the act and conduct of respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 2 did not give a satisfactory answer to the complainant.
4. That the respondents committed serious deficiency in their services and harassed the Complainant for a long time. The complainant has suffered long harassment, mental agony, pain, shock etc and the respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner with Rs. 30,000/- on this account.

 

5. That the complainant called upon the respondents several times to replace the mobile phone or repair the same or to pay the cost of the mobile phone ie. Rs. 12000/- alongwith interest @18% from the date of purchase of the mobile phone, but the respondents continue to avoid the petitioner by one pretext or the other and the respondents on or about a week back finally refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. Hence this complaint wherein the following relief were sought of OPs to either to replace or return the mobile phone or repair the same or to refund the cost of the mobile along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile till full and final realization to the complainant alongwith Rs. 30,000/- as a compensation to the complainant for  mental agony, pain, shock etc. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant.

2. Accordingly, on 28/9/2018 after hearing arguments on admission, notice was issued to OPs returnable on 19/11/2018, but none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service of notice on 19/11/2018. A tracking report of the duly receipt of the Notice of the same has been placed on record.

 

3. The OPs were also served through court notice and after that also they didn’t turn up and ignored the court notice. This act of the OPs clearly shows that the OPs are avoiding/disrespecting the court proceedings although they have been duly served.

 

4. In M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SCC 630, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “That if a registered letter addressed to the person at his residential address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's conduct. If he is staying away for some time all that he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has gone or to deliver them to some other person authorized by him.” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hira Lal &Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 523 has held that notices returned with postal remarks “Not available in the House”, “House Locked” and “Shop Closed", must be deemed that the notices have been served on the OPs. Accordingly, the OP’s have proceeded exparte vide order dated 12-03-2019.

 

5. The complainant filed exparte evidence by way of an affidavit on 12-03-2019 testifying all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents exhibit CW-1/1 to CW-1/3 affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents. :

 

1. Photocopy of the invoice date 02/04/2017 attached herewith and exhibited as Ex. CW-1/1,
2. Photocopy of Copy of complaint expert slip dated 14/07/2017 is attached herewith and exhibited as Ex. CW-1/2
3. Photocopy of a delivery note dated 15/12/2017 attached herewith and exhibited as Ex. CW-1/3.

 

6. The matter adjourned for final/oral arguments.
7. Oral arguments were heard on 12/09/2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions from the complainant.

 

8. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant has proved on record the relevant documents in support of its case.

 

9. Admittedly the Complainant filed a complaint on28/08/2018 against the Opposite Party even after duly receipt of the notice, but the same was neither replied to nor they appeared before this commission.

 

 

10. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the Complainant or the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is within the time limit since the opposite party accepted the consideration amount on 2.04.2017. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and because of the unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of Complainant and the documents proved on record, Complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from OP.

 

11. In our opinion, a person purchases a mobile handset, to use the same, so that she/he could communicate with her/his relations, friends, and other persons acquainted with her/him, frequently. The mobile handset is the most important mode of communication.

 

12. In the instant case, the complainant was supplied a defective mobile set subsequently mobile set whose battery got burn within three months of use. The complainant again visited Opposite party no.3 wherein they verified that the mobile phone is defective. It is not the case that after using a mobile phone for a reasonable period a defect was developed in the set. In this case, the mobile phone supplied was defective inherently. Least of all the opposite parties should have either repaired or replaced the subject mobile phone.

 

 

 

13. Given the above discussion, Hence, we think that OPs are grossly deficient in service. The present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under: -

 

[i] To refund Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 28/08/2018 till realization to the complainant

[ii] To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

14. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

15.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.
16. File be consigned to record room.

 

17.  Announced on 22/09/2022.

 

 

Richa Jindal                          Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                   (Member)                            (President)