Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/351/2013

S.Santhosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balaji Solution - Opp.Party(s)

A.D.Jagadish Chandrira

03 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Complaint Filed: 14.11.2013

                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Reservation: 16.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Order: 03.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

                  Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.                                  : President

                 Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                                           : Member

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.351/2013

 

FRIDAY, THE 03^rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

 S.Santosh Kumar,

No.460, Mint Street, Near Ramar Koil, Sowearpet,

Chennai -600 079.                                                                                       .. Complainant.                                                                                          ..Versus..

1.M/s.Pantel Technologies Private Limited,

   Corporate Office, Rep by Managing Director,

   E-33, Sector  63, Noida,

   Uttar Pradesh, India – 201 301.

 

2.M/s.Balaji Solutions (PVT) limited,

    New No.6, Old No.34,

    Rep. by Managing Director,  Sunkuvar Agraharam Street,

   Chinthadripet, Chennai -600 002.

 

3.M/s. Unigqe Computech,

    Rep. by proprietor, No.31, Wallers Road, 2^nd Floor,

    Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002.

 

   Also having showroom in the name and style of

   M/s. Adinath Computers,

   Rep. by Proprietor,  No.11, Wallers Road,

   Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002.

 

4.M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

    Reb. by Chief General Manager,

    Tamilnadu Circle,

    Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.                                                    ..  Opposite parties.

 

******

 

Counsel for the complainant                              : M/S.A.D.Jagadish Chandira, Adv.,

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                     : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                    : M/s.S.Nagarajan, Adv.,

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                    : M/s.S.Adhilakshmi, Adv.,

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party                    :Mr.K.Balajee, Adv.,

 

            On perusal of records and after having heard the arguments we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.

 

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to refund the purchase amount of Rs.4703/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of purchase and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and with cost.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 4^th opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.B1 document was filed and also written argument filed. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties’ written version and proof affidavit filed but no documents and written argument filed on their side.

            3. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

            The complainant has purchased a Wi-Fi M.I.D. Tablet IS701C from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs.4703/- on 29.12.2012.  At the time of purchase it is informed that the 1^st and 4^th opposite parties had manufactured and marketed the device. After purchase the device had problems in starting up and rebooting on the USB and other related issues. On 28.03.2013 when the device was kept for charging, immediately smoke appeared from within the tablet and the complainant instantly switched off the charging and when verified the tablet was found to have cracked from the rear side and thereafter the complainant tried to switch on the tablet the same did not start.  Hence the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to rectify the defects in the tablet, but the 3^rd opposite party instead of rectifying the device directed to the complainant to approach the service centre authorised by the 1^st opposite party at Monteith Road, Egmore, Chennai and on the said service centre refused to rectify the defects on the reason that the warranty/guarantee cannot be claimed since the 1^st opposite party is not providing any backup for the service to them. Again the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party and directed the complainant to approach another authorised service centre namely Ariel Electronics private Limited, Adyar, Chennai.  After the complainant visited the service centre and handed over the tablet and examination the service centre informed that the device is having manufacturing defect and it cannot be serviced in the service centre and thereafter the complainant contact the customer care of the 1^st opposite party and a complaint was registered by the customer care department of the 1^st opposite party, but no service was provided.  After several calls to customer care he was informed to visit another 1^st opposite party’s service centre at M/s.Skyway Techno, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai, who in turn directed the complainant to another service centre at Arcot Road,Porur, Chennai, even there the complainant was not provided any service. Thus the complainant was made to run from pillar to post without any service hence the complainant made a representation on 23.07.2013 to 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties and after the receipt of the said letter the 3^rd opposite party introduced and represented the complainant to M/s Balaji Solutions PVT Limited, Chennai being the 2^nd opposite party herein and stated that the 1^st opposite party being represented by it in Chennai and as such the device was received by the 2^nd opposite party from the complainant vide D.C.No.1082  on 30.07.2013 and informed the complainant to contact after a few days. As such after few days in the month of August 2013 the 2^nd opposite party replaced the original device and issued with similar device admitting that the earlier device has manufacturing defect and which he will not be able to sort out and further represented and promised that the replacement device have no problem and it is tested effectively. Once again the replaced device was found to be falling short of their claims, as the device was under performing and required several reboots for opening a single program and further the device was not stable.  Hence the complainant again on 28.08.2013 visited the 2^nd opposite party where on checking the device, the concerned persons informed the complainant to leave the device for repairs but when requested for D.C. to acknowledge the receipt of the device they had denied and informed the complainant to leave the device with them without D.C. as issuance of the subsequent/ second D.C after the failure of the 2^nd device may bring down the reputation of the device in the market and with the complainant insisted on D.C. the concerned persons had informed the complainant that the device cannot be repaired here and told the complainant to approach the 1^st opposite party for any further clarifications. Since the complainant was made to run from pillar to post without any service  the complainant made another representation to the opposite parties calling upon them on 12.09.2013 to take back the device and refund of Rs.4703/- along with compensation for deficiency in service.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party contacted through their legal department on 09.10.2013 and sought the copy of the invoice, service and the D.C. if any issued by the 2^nd opposite party through email on 10.10.2013 for processing the refund of purchase amount and further compensation.  As such on 21.10.2013 the complainant has replied through email and provided all the copy of the aforesaid documents but till date there is no reply from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed.

            4.Written version of 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties in brief:-

            It is admitted that the complainant has purchased a tablet from the 3^rd opposite party and also admitted that the complainant visited the 2^nd opposite party service centre on 30.07.2013 for carrying out repair works. At the time of product of the tablet, the instrument was in dead stage and backside panel was fully broken. However, since the instrument was produced within the warranty period the board was replaced.  However after carrying out necessary repair work, the instrument was handed over to the complainant in the working condition.  Further at the specific request made by the complainant the instrument was handed over without production of original DC.  Thereafter the complainant not approached the opposite party for carrying out any subsequent repair, as alleged in the complaint. On the other hand the averments set out in the complaint are vexatious and it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

            5.Written version of 4^th opposite party in brief:-

            The 1^st opposite party entered into Agreement dated 09.02.2012 with the 4^th opposite party to provide to its customers a select range of computing products in India with embedded SIM and 2G and 3G data service of 4^th opposite party and for consumers who prefer to use an external modem/dongle of BSNL, PTPL’s the opposite party herein will make its Notebooks & Net books available with External modem options as well.  The agreement is only for sale of BSNL’s SIM card bundled with PTPL’s computing product and the complaint with respect to the smoke appeared from within the tablet is a manufacturing defect on the device. As clause 4.1 of the agreement the 1^st opposite party carried out all the marketing activities.  The 1^st opposite party is engaged in the business of design, manufacture and sale of the computing device and 4^th opposite party only provides Telecom and IT related services. As per clause 2.7 of the agreement between the 1^st and 4^th opposite parties, all disputes and complaints by customer w.r.t. to defects etc., in PTPL computing products, inter alia PTPL Notebooks and Net books/TPADs shall directly be handled / addressed by PTPL.  BSNL shall not be responsible for such defects in products of PTPL envisaged herein under any circumstances and the 1^st opposite party herein will at its own cost undertake marketing, advertising and promotions etc., of bundled BSNL products. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

            6.The points for consideration are:-

            1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

7. Point No.1:-

 

            In respect of tablet the 1^st and 4^th opposite parties had manufactured and marketed the device respectively and there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased a Wi-Fi M.I.D. Tablet IS701C from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs.4703/- on 29.12.2012 which is marked as Ex.A1 document. Ex.A2 is the warranty card issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant and Ex.A3 is the service work order and Ex.A5 is the delivery challan of 2^nd opposite party on 30.07.2013, in the delivery challan it is mentioned the problem of the tablet.

            8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant himself stated that the 2^nd opposite party has replaced a tablet instead of defective tablet.  There is no documentary evidence to prove that the replaced device also has got some defects as such there is no documentary evidence to prove that the replaced device was again handed over to the 2^nd opposite party’s concerned by the complainant.  Unfortunately the complainant has failed to submit the defective replaced tablet before this commission.

            9. Further the complainant has issued notice to the opposite parties for demanding to refund the cost of the tablet and also compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties through notice on 12.09.2013 for that on 10.10.2013 the 1^st opposite party sent an email to the complainant AS DISCUSSED OVER PHONE, PLEASE PROVIDE SCANNED COPY OF YOUR ORIGINAL PURCHASE BILL & DC OF M/S BALAJI (IF YOU HAVE) which is marked as Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 is the email sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party but no reply was sent and no steps has taken by the 1^st opposite party.  Further after filing this complaint before this commission a notice also sent to the 1^st opposite party but he has not appeared before this commission and thereby the 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte on 27.01.2014. 

            10. Considering this fact it is found that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the product and the 3^rd opposite party is the dealer. It is admitted that the product has got manufacturing defects.  It has to be rectified or resolved the matter by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties but the 1^st opposite parties have failed to do their duty.  Hence we found that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on their part.  The 4^th opposite party is BSNL Chennai Telephones and the 2^nd opposite party is only a service provider. Therefore they are not liable to pay compensation. Hence we found that the 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite parties are committed deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

11. Point Nos.2 & 3:-

 

We have discussed and decided that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on their part. Hence the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled to get some reliefs. Accordingly point No.2 & 3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4703/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and three only) towards cost of the defective product and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant apart from that a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The 1^st and 3^rd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to pay the above accrued amount within three months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the same along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. This complaint is dismissed as against the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties.

 

            Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 3^rd day of December 2021.

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                                                           R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	29.12.2012	Invoice No.UC-1213-018492.	Xerox
Ex.A2	NIL	Warranty Card.	Xerox
Ex.A3	30.03.2013	Service work Order	Xerox
Ex.A4	23.07.2013	Representation of the Complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A5	30.07.2013	Delivery Challan No.1082.	Xerox
Ex.A6	12.09.2013	Representation of the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A7	10.10.2013	Representation of the 1st opposite party	Xerox
Ex.A8	21.10.2013	Reply of the complainant.	Xerox
Ex.A9	................	Website Confirmation	Xerox
Ex.A10	................	Photo copy of the replaced device with CD	Xerox

            List of documents filed by the 4^th opposite party:-

Ex.B1

09.02.2012

Agreement between BSNL & PTPL.

Xerox

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                                                               R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT