This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Danda Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for complainant; and the opposite parties No.1&2 appeared in person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Tablet PC by believing the broad publicity of HCL company, vide IMEI no.912STN125037 on 10-01-2013 for Rs.7,000/- with 1 year warranty. After one month, it started giving troubles and not functioning properly, no battery backup, closing automatically, thus, complained the same and handed over the Tablet PC to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party No.1 assured that the authorized service engineer will attend the repairs but did not do so till the last week of July. The complainant further stated that he approached the opposite party No.1 on many times during February to last week of July 2013 but there is no proper response. Finally, the opposite party No.1 returned the Tablet PC after got it repaired. After using for one week, the previous problems were started again. Once again it was informed to the opposite party No.1. Then, the opposite party No.1 stated that the authorized engineer will come again in the month of September 2013 and promised to give proper services or replace the Tablet PC with new one, even after got it repaired by the authorized service engineer at 2nd time the same problems were once again arose in the month of October 2013. Therefore, again the Tablet PC was handed over to the opposite party No.1 in the month of October 2013, the service engineer of opposite parties attended the repairs in the month of November 2013 as there is no rectification of problems, once again, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and as there is no response, lost his hope either in rectification of defects or replacement with new one. The complainant also submitted that due to delay tactics of opposite parties, he felt apprehension of loss of warranty period. Therefore, issued legal notice on 03-01-2013 inspite of receipt of legal notice, the opposite parties paid deaf ear and as such filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service and prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Tablet PC with new one or to refund Rs.7,000/- with interest at @24% P.A. from the date of purchase of Tablet PC and Rs.30,000/- towards damages and also prayed to award Rs.3,000/- towards expenses, incurred by the complainant and costs.
3. In support of his case, the complaint filed affidavit and bill dt.10-01-2013 for Rs.7,000/- and Office copy of legal notice, dt. 03-01-2014 with acknowledgements, those were marked as exhibits A1 and A2.
4. After service, the Store Manager of opposite party No.1 appeared on behalf of opposite parties 1 & 2 and requested time for settlement. Despite giving sufficient time the opposite parties failed to settle the matter till the matter was posted for orders and did not file their written version.
5. In view of above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Point:-
According to the above submissions and the material on record, it is a fact that the complainant purchased HCL Tablet PC on 10-01-2013 for Rs.7,000/- from the shop of opposite party No.1. within short period, that is, within 1 month the Tablet PC started giving troubles, upon which, the Tablet PC was handed over to the opposite party No.1 for repairs, but without rectifying the defects, dragged the same till last week of July. Since then, the same problems i.e. battery backup, automatically closing problems were repeatedly arose inspite of frequent repairs done by the authorized engineer of opposite parties. It is also the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties did not respond properly in providing proper services to rectify the defects or to replace the defective peace with new one and played delay tactics to avoid their liability in warranty period and even after receipt of legal notice they did not respond properly and as such prayed for redressal by filing the present complaint. After service of notices from this Forum, the Store Manager of opposite party No.1 appeared in person on behalf of opposite parties and stated that the opposite parties are ready to replace the Tablet PC with new one and requested time for settlement but after that there is no representation from the opposite parties inspite of giving sufficient time even they did not turn up for filing counter till the matter was posted for orders.
In view of the above circumstances this Forum opined that it is sheer negligence on the part of opposite parties and definitely it will amount to deficiency of service towards the consumers therefore, the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant.
6. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to replace the defective Tablet PC vide IMEI No. 912STN125037 with new one or to refund Rs.7,000/- (cost of the Tablet) within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till realization. Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 24th day of July, 2015.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant For Opposite party
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant For Opposite party
Ex.A1:- | Bill dt. 10-01-2013 for Rs.7,000/-. | |
Ex.A2:- | Ex.A2:- Office copy of legal notice, dt. 03-01-2014 with acknowledgements | |
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
