Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/351

Bal krishan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bagittoday com - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R K Bhan

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/351 of 18/12/2014

Decided on 27/03/2015

 

Bal Krishan Sharma son of Sh. Daya Krishan Sharma resident of 132/3, Sarain Patti Chowk, Telephone Colony, Samana, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Bagittoday Com-B-45, Sector-57, Noida through C.E.O., Gaurav Kachru.

2. HCL 806, Siddarth Building, 96, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its Authorized Service Centre at Patiala, Network Business Group, SCO-12, Ist Floor, Mini Market, 22 Number Phatak, Patiala.

3. Edge Infotel Pvt. Ltd.9 DSIDC Sheds, 2^nd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma complainant in person.

For Opposite party no.2 & 3: Ex- parte

 

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant placed an order for the purchase of one HCL Tablet ME-1 through online with OP no.1 vide order no.34048747 dt. 8/10/2014 for an amount of Rs.5440/- paid through debit card. OP no.1 assured the complainant that the product would be delivered within 5-7 days but the same was not delivered within the specified period. Accordingly, the complainant contacted OP no.1 many a times telephonically but to no use. The complainant also lodged various complaints with the Customer care centre vide complaint no.1679836 dt. 16/10/2014 and many other subsequent complaints. Ultimately after a delay of 20 days the product was delivered vide consignment no.0991Q0953002 through courier at Samana on 28/10/2014. It is averred that the complainant opened the parcel to switch on the tablet for using the same and inserted SIM card and Micro SD card in it but the tablet did not support the Micro SD card and it hanged when the complainant tried to operate the same. The complainant immediately contacted OP no.1 and lodged a complaint vide complaint no.1693891 on 28/10/2014 but OP no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant also contacted OP no.2 & 3 telephonically but they also did not give any satisfactory reply and told him to contact OP no.1. The complainant again contacted OP no.1 telephonically and also sent an email to all the three OPs on 30/10/2014 demanding the replacement of the product but none of the OPs gave any reply.

2. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the authorized service centre of Op no.2 at Patiala and showed it the tablet, but the officials of the service centre told the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the tablet and when the complainant asked them to replce the tablet, they told him that he should first send an email to the company and the company will send him i.e. the complaint, complaint ID number and the complainant should then give that ID number to the service centre, only then the service centre will replace the tablet. The complainant asked the service centre to give this in writing but it refused to give any thing in writing.

3. Thereafter, the complainant sent an email to HCL company requesting it to send complaint ID number but it failed to give any reply to the complainant. The complainant also sent various reminders but to no use. The complainant also lodged complaint with customer care but all went in vain.

4. On 18/11/2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon OPs but the OPs did not pay any heed to hear the complaint of the complainant. The complainant suffered physically, mentally as well as monetarily due to the non functioning of the Tablet. Ultimately the complainant had to purchase another mobile phone for Rs.9000/- on 04/12/2014 due to the act and conduct of the OPs. The complainant could not use the Tablet even for a single day and the OPs were bound to rectify the defect which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

5. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.2 & 3 only. OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.

6. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and he closed the evidence.

7. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence placed on record.

8. Ex.C-3 is the invoice where by the complainant purchased one HCL Tablet from OP no.1 through on line service for an amount of Rs.5440/- which was delivered to the complainant on 28/10/2014. On receiving the same, when the complainant inserted SIM card and Micro SD Card in the Tablet, it did not support Micro SD Card and it got hanged when the complainant tried to operate it. The complainant immediately contacted OP no.1 telephonically but OP no.1 failed to give any satisfactory reply. Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 dt. 30/10/2014, 05/11/2014 and 11/11/2014 are the copies of the e-mails whereby the complainant lodged complaint with all the three OPs but OPs failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Ex.C-7 is the copy of the legal notice but the OPs failed to reply the legal notice too.

9. In the present case, it seems that there is some glaring defect in the tablet which may be repairable. OPs failed to respond to the e- mails sent by the complainant as a result of which the complainant was constrained to approach this forum. Failure on the part of OPs to contest the claim of the complainant also shows their indifferent attitude to solve the complaint of the complainant.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the defect in the tablet to the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace it with a new one and if that is also not possible to refund an amount of Rs.5440/- the price of the Tablet. OP no.2 is also obliged to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of one month on the receipt of the certified copy of the order. On failure to comply with the order within one month, OP no.2 shall be liable to refund the price with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till realization.

Pronounced

Dated: 27/03/2015.

D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

President Member