Mobile dealer, service centre fined Rs 10K for poor services in Chd | punjab$chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 20, 2017-Monday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Mobile dealer, service centre fined Rs 10K for poor services in Chd

punjab Updated: Nov 22, 2015 11:08 IST

For failing to repair the mobile phone and then denial to replace it within the warranty period, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed a dealer of HTC India Pvt Ltd in Sector 22—Anmol Watches and Electronics Pvt Ltd — and company’s authorised service centre TVS Electronics Ltd in Sector 47, to give a new handset to the complainant.

Finding deficient services on part of the dealer and the service centre, the forum also awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the complainant, identified as Nidhi, a resident of Sector 45-C.

Nidhi had purchased a mobile handset — HTC Touch Desire 700 (Black) — for Rs 21,980 on April 11, 2014, from the said dealer. The handset had one year’s warranty.

On December 31, 2014, the complainant deposited the mobile handset with the aforesaid service centre for repair as it developed defect in ‘auto on/ off ’ function. The handset was returned to her the same day, after repair. As the defect persisted, she revisited the service centre on March 28, 2015, following which the phone’s AC adapter was replaced. On April 01, 2015, the complainant visited the service centre as the handset developed defect of ‘battery rundown test fail’. The handset was delivered to the complainant on April 06, 2015. She deposited th handset again at the service centre on April 16, 2015.

Disappointed with the services, on May 3, 2015, Nidhi requested sought replacement of the handset or refund the cost, but her request was turned down. She then approached the consumer forum. The respondents did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and the forum decided the complaint ex-parte.

“Due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the opposite parties to repair the handset to the complainant’s satisfaction or replace it, especially when it was within the warranty period. It proves deficiency in service,” the forum observed.