BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
PRESENT : 1) MR.N.MOHAPATRA : PRESIDENT
2) MR.P.C.BARIK : MEMBER
C.D.CASE NO. 24/ 2015
Mr.Anjan Bhowmick, aged about 49 years,
S/O : Shri Nibaran Chandra Bhowmick,
Address : A.R.C. Charbatia, Qtrs. No.3R-96,
PO: Charbatia, Dist : Cuttack,
Odisha – 754028
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. THE MANAGER, SUPREME SYSTEM,
TATA ELEXI LIMITED, PLOT NO.555,
SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR,
ODISHA
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,
FERNS ICON, LEVEL – 2,
DODDENAKUND VILLAGE,
MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD,
MARATHALLI POST, KR.PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE – 560037
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant … Self
For the OPs … Exparte
EXPARTE ORDER : DATED – 10/02/2016
MR.N.MOHAPATRA, PRESIDENT :
1. The case has been filed to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the Tablet amounting to Rs.8,990/- , pay compensation and litigation cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one tablet (Tab in short) of Lenovo PC Idea A-1000-T from the authorized dealer of the OPs on 15/08/2013 on payment of Rs.8,990/- vide invoice Annexure – 1. The said Tab found defective within the warranty period, hence complaint was lodged with the customer care of the OPs under Annexure – II to which they did not respond, the complainant further sent a letter on 23/09/2014 for redressal of his grievance to which there was also no satisfactory reply. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the case has been filed with prayer stated at Para -1 above.
3. The OPs having remained absent after receipt of notice issued by this Forum, have been set exparte and exparte hearing was taken up.
4. Evidence affidavit has been filed by the complainant.
5. It is submitted by the complainant that he had purchased the Tab in question from the authorized dealer of the OPs on payment of Rs.8,990/- as consideration money and it was found defective within the warranty period, on being requested, nothing positive emerged, therefore, the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service, for which they are liable to refund the cost price of the Tab and pay compensation and litigation cost.
6. The Xerox copy of invoice has been filed to show that the Tab was purchased by the complainant from the authorized dealer of the OPs on payment of Rs.8,990/- on 15/08/2013. The allegation of the complainant is that defect was noticed in the Tab within the warranty period, hence it was brought to the notice of the OPs but the OPs neither replaced the same nor refunded the cost price of it. Hence the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the tab in question
7. The submission as well as pleadings of the complainant remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the OPs took no step to contest the proceeding, as such the submission of the complainant is accepted. Further, in our considered opinion, the entire act of the OPs amounts to gross deficiency in service. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is allowed exparte against the OPs. The OPs are hereby directed jointly & severally to refund the cost of the Tab in question amounting to Rs.8,990/- to the complainant on receiving back the impugned Tab from the complainant, within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. Compensation for mental agony is assessed at Rs.1000/- and litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs to the complainant. The order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within the stipulated period of one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the same against the OPs in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 10th February, 2016 in the open Forum under the seal & signature of this Forum.
(MR.N.MOHAPATRA)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
Member
Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno:
