Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/26

Kamal Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

       C.C. No: 26 of 08.01.2015

                                                                      Date of Decision:26.05.2015

Kamal Kumar s/o Sh.Niranjan Dass r/o 165 New Punjab Mata Nagar, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

                                                    Versus          

1.Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd., BXXVI225, First Floor, Kochar Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana.                      

2.Best IT World (India) Pvt.Ltd., Registered Office 87, Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross Road “A” Andheri (East), Mumbai.                                                                                                 ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.        

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                 

Present:       Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Adv, for complainant.

Sh.Gurpreet Singh, authorized representative for Ops.

 

                             ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant Sh.Kamal Kumar, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) against Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd., BXXVI225, First Floor, Kochar Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana and others(herein-after in short to be described as ‘Ops’)- directing them to give back the tablet/mobile in proper OK and working condition by replacing the crack screen of the tablet/hone or to refund the money of the same i.e. Rs.8900/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Tablet PC Slide 3G 7345Q- 800 from Data Link Computers Shop No.4, Kochar Market, Ludhiana on 8.8.2014 vide invoice No.RT/1116. In the month of November, the tablet/phone starting giving the problem to the complainant i.e.hanging and restarting and the set has also a heating problem. As the set was in the warranty period, so the complainant went to the service centre i.e. OP1 on 8.11.2014 and disclosed the problem at the said service centre. The concerned employee over there at the service centre after checking the phone, advised the complainant to deposit the tablet/phone in service centre for checking purpose and assured that the problem will be rectified and the same will take one or two days and asked the complainant to come after two-three days and gave a receipt with regard to the same and document No. of the same is 122031461777729. On 12.11.2014, the complainant went to take the tablet/phone at the service centre i.e. OP1 and when the complainant enquired for the same, the concerned employee over there told the complainant that the problem has been rectified and asked the complainant to stay for 10-15 minutes. When the concerned person over there in the service centre gave the phone to the complainant and when the complainant checked the same thoroughly, then he found that the screen of the tablet was cracked from the right end of top corner and when the complainant told the concerned person over there at the service centre of OP1 that when he deposited the set with OP1 for checking purpose on 8.11.2014, then the same was in the OK condition and the screen was not broken at that time and now OP1 have broken the screen of the tablet. The person over there told the complainant that it is a minor issue and otherwise, problem has been rectified. Moreover, the cracked screen will not give any problem as it is very short crack and it might happen in the opening of the set from their side i.e. Op1. The person over there told the complainant to take the set for the time being and advised him to come after two three days and asked the complainant that then they will see to the same. But the complainant refused to the same and asked the concerned person of OP1 to replace the screen now but concerned person at service centre of OP1 flatly refused to do the same and asked the complainant to take the set in that screen broken condition and that OP will not replace the screen. Due to the arrogant behaviour of OP1, the complainant was very much astonished and surprised and he left the set with the OP1 as the complainant wants to set in the proper OK condition and not in the broken condition which happened due to the negligence of the OP1 and OP1 is in the illegal custody of the tablet/phone as the Op1 is duty bound to give the set in proper OK condition and OP1 have failed to do the same. The complainant sent emails to the Ops and also sent a legal notice dated 28.11.2014 upon the Ops to replace the crack screen of the tablet/phone. But despite receipt of the notice, Ops failed to do the needful. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Sh.Gurpreet Singh, authorized representative/Area Service Manager had put his appearance on behalf of Ops and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, baseless and not maintainable in law. There is no cause of action whatsoever nature has been arisen to file the present complaint before this Forum as the complainant has not approached before this District Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is complainant own admission in the complaint that the answering OP2 having registered office at Mumbai which is beyond jurisdiction of this District Forum. Further, it is submitted that there is no reason to approach the complainant this Hon’ble Forum as before filing of the complaint, the complainant had collected his duly repair mobile handset from the answering OP1. At the time of collecting the mobile handset, the complainant had not made any grievance whatever natures to the answering OP1. Through their reply letter dated 20.12.2014, answering Ops duly communicated the said fact to the Advocate of the complainant and the said reply is self-explanatory to prove the falsity case of complainant. The present complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party as in paragraph no.1 of the complaint there is admission that complainant had purchased mobile from Data Link Computer Shop, however, said party has not been joined or made party to the present complaint. Further, it is submitted that the complainant first time, deposited his slide on 15.9.2014 to the service centre for the problem no power. The service centre after rectifying the defect, returned the mobile handset to the complainant on 8.10.2014. After verified the condition and satisfaction of the service render by the answering Ops, the complainant duly collected the mobile handset. Thereafter, again on 8.11.2014, the complainant visited their service centre i.e. OP1 for alleged problem of hanging, heating and auto restart and touch crack which were duly rectified and returned the slide to the complainant on 27.12.2014. The complainant duly collected slide from their service centre on very same day and thereafter, service centre closed the call. Again, complainant had come with the same problem and after checking the slide, their service centre intimated him that there was no problem or defect in the slide. However, complainant had not inclined to listen anything and throw/kept the slide on the counter and left the service centre. Since, then the duly repaired slide is lying with the answering OP1. Further, it is submitted that there is procedure to issue customer receipt and accordingly, answering Ops issued a receipt. As and when the slide deposited for repair, the answering Ops provided best service to the complainant and rectified all the defects as alleged by the complainant, therefore, there is no substance in the allegations of the complainant. The answering Ops denied that there staff ever refused to do any work or made any statement as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. At the end, denying all other allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint against the answering OPs, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW8.

5.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, representative for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record his affidavit Ex.RA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of  written reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant and further, he has proved on record documents Ex.A and Ex.B.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and representative for OPs and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

7.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had purchased the Tablet PC Slide 3G 7345Q -800 from Data Link Computers Shop No.4, Kochar Market, Ludhiana on 8.8.2014 vide invoice No.RT/1116 which fact is proved from copy of retail invoice Ex.CW1, which was giving problems to the complainant regarding hanging and restarting and also with the problem of heating. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP1 on 8.11.2014 and made them known regarding the problems which he was facing in his tablet/phone. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the complainant had deposited his tablet/phone with the official of OP1 against receipt No.122031461777729. But when the complainant had gone to collect the tablet/phone, he found that there is a crack on the right end of top corner of the screen of the said tablet/phone. Though, this fact do not find mention in the job card which was issued by OP1 at the time of taking the tablet/phone from the complainant.

8.                Though, the Ops have taken the plea that tablet/phone of the complainant was already suffered from this crack of screen but evidence of the Ops reveals that Ops have not placed on record any such documents, from which, it could be presumed that screen of the tablet/phone of the complainant was already broken/cracked when the same was deposited by the complainant with officials of OP1 for repair or to cure the defects. So, it appears that screen of the tablet/phone of the complainant has been damaged during the custody of the same with the officials of Ops and as such, Ops are liable to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile of the complainant.

9.                In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, direct the Ops to carry out the necessary repair in the tablet/mobile of the complainant by replacing the cracked screen of the tablet/mobile of the complainant, or any other defects, without any cost and thereafter, to handover the tablet/mobile to the complainant after making it proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                                 (R.L.Ahuja)

                              Member                                            President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.5.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.