BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 192/2015 Filed on 08.05.2015

ORDER DATED: 09.02.2016

Complainants:

1. Sijo Javad, S/o Javad, Ambanattu  Veedu, Velavoor, Pirappancode P.O, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. A.A. Javad,     ..do..           ..do..

                             (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. H.T.C Corporation, No. 23, Xinghua Road, Taoyuan City, Taoyuan Country, 330 Taivan, R.O.C.
2. United Telecom Ltd., 18-A/19, Doddanekuli, Industrial Area, Mahadevapuram P.O, Bangalore-560 048.
3. Access Technology, Authorized Service Centre, H.T.C Opp: govt. Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Pothys Life Style, Ayurveda College Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

This C.C having been heard on 04.12.2015, the Forum on 09.02.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

1^st complainant is the son of 2^nd complainant.  1^st complainant on 09.07.2014 purchased one HTC Handset Desire 816 Serial No. fa46rmz 00636 Item code 503226 from 4^th opposite party for a total amount of Rs. 23,000/-.  Since the 1^st complainant who is a student purchased the same from utilizing the funds of his father 2^nd complainant.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the HTC Handset Desire 816.  2^nd opposite party is the importer and 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre.  After purchasing the handset the 1^st complainant came to know that handset is a defective one showing many complaints such as charger port not working, cameras when opened appeared as black, power button not working properly etc.  So he approached the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service centre and demanded to rectify the defect or replace the damaged set.  3^rd opposite party admitted that the set is a defective one.  The handset was purchased on 09.07.2014 vide invoice No. 14D 15275.  The complainant used the set only for a short period upto 02.12.2014.  The 3^rd opposite party assured the complainant that the set will be repaired or replaced as the terms of the warranty issued by the 1^st opposite party.  So he believed the words of the 3^rd opposite party.  Unfortunately the 3^rd opposite party demanded Rs. 13,000/- for rectifying the defect.  Since the set is a defective one and comes under warranty the 1^st complainant is not liable to pay any amount for rectification.  The opposite parties deliberately deceived the complainants.  So he approached this Forum. 

Notice was issued to all the 4 opposite parties.  But they failed to appear and we proceeded exparte against them. 

Points raised:

1. Whether the allegations against the opposite party is proved?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Ext. P1 to P3.  Perused the documents and heard the complainant.  On going the pleadings of the complaint it is seen that the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant became defective within months of its purchase.  The purpose for which he bought the handset was not served.  Moreover not a single line is before us to contradict the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party.  So we have no other way rather than to allow the complaint. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 23,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint (08.05.2015) till the date of realization along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.  These amounts are to be given within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which Rs. 23,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 12% after the date of default.  On payment of these amounts, opposite parts can retain the defective handset with themselves. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 9^th day of February 2016.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER 

            Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

            Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 192/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of bill

P2     - Copy of user unit status

P3     - Copy of limited warranty statement

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb