Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/731/2017

VINAY CHIB - Complainant(s)

Versus

BEST OF WORLD - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GUPTA

10 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM JAMMU

Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987

                                                          .

 Case File  No                 277/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     28/10/2017

 Date of Decision          30/01/2018

 

Vinay Chib

S/O Sh.Rohlu Singh

R/O Shiv Nagar Jammu

                                                                                                                            Complainant

             V/S

1.Best IT World India Ltd Jammu

  87 Mistry Industrial Complex MIDC

Cross Road Andheri East Mumbai

400093 Maharashtra.

2. Best IT World India Ltd. Jammu

  H.No.391 Opp.Tribune Office Near Girls

 High Secondry School Shastri Nagar  Jammu

 Service Centre.

3.Singh Electronics Shalamar Road Jammu

Authorised Dealer of Iball.

                                                                                                                                 Opposite parties

CORAM

                 Khalil Choudhary   Distt.& Sessions Judge       President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

       

In the matter of  Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Amit Gupta Advocate for complainant present.

Mr.Kulbushan Rathore Authorised Representative of OPs1 and 2 present.  

Nemo for OP3.

 

 

                                                                                                               ORDER

                          Grievance of complainant as disclosed in the complaint is that he purchased IBall Snap Tablet PC 4G on 23/12/2016 from OP3 which is authorized dealer of OP1 for sum of Rs.8000/ copy of bill is annexed as Annexure A however within few months said Tab said to have  marred by defects resultantly complainant approached OP2 and complained about complete failure of set who in turn asked him to avail warranty service through OP2 Accordiing to complainant on the advice of OP3 he visited the care centre of OP2 for availing the warranty service but on checking the set the service engineers of OP2 told him that the said set developed some manufacturing defect Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached service centre personally as the tab was again and again giving problem to him and the service engineers returned the said set after updating the software Complainant further submitted that the said Tab suffers from manufacturing defect  which persisted again and again and has caused immense harassment to complainant therefore complainant submits that it clearly constitutes deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not removing defect or replacing the tab with new one  Complainant in the final analysis prays for refund of cost of Tab or replacement of same with new one and in addition complainant prays for Rs.75000/ as compensation under different heads.

                      On the other hand OP1 and 2 filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant in toto went onto submit that as per their record the complainant only once i.e.on 03/10/2017 had visited OP2 for the problem of charging the OP2 rectified the defect by replacing battery and USB Jack and returned duly repaired and rectified tablet to the complainant on 04/10/2017.The OP1 and 2 further submits that at the time of collecting the duly repaired tablet the complainant has thoroughly checked and after being satisfied that his grievance was duly rectified and the defect of tablet was rectified till his satisfaction the complainant collected from OP2 by giving acknowledgment of job satisfactory on customer issue slip. The Ops further submitted that since then the complainant did not turn to service centre for any grievance or complaint of his tablet and the warranty of the tablet is upto 23/12/2017 and OP2 is ready and willing to provide service to the complainant for which complainant required to visit OP2 therefore this Honble Forum direct the complainant to visit OP2 and dismiss the complaint.

                   At the same time notice was sent to the OP3 alongwith copy of complaint through registered cover with acknowledgment due and as per record the notice was received by OP3 but OP3 did not choose to represent the case in this Forum either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act so its right to file written version was closed vide order dated 18/12/2017 and complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavit in support of the complaint.

                 Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Gupta.Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice form and copy of job card.

                                        We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for parties at length.

                To be brief allegation of complainant is that during currency of warranty period Tab was marred by manufacturing defects. On the other hand OP1 & 2came up with the defence that as per their record the complainant visited OP2 only once i.e.on 03/10/2017 for the problem of charging the OP2 rectified the defect by replacing battery and USB Jack and returned duly repaired and rectified tablet to the complainant on 04/10/2017 .

                                 In order to substantiate his allegations complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Complainant and his witness reiterated the contents of complaint therefore same need no repetition. Although OP1&2 filed their version but in order dated 19/01/2018 Kulbushan Rathore authorized dealer appeared on behalf of OP1&2 and submits that he do not want to lead evidence. To this effect the signatures of Kulbushan Rathore has been taken on the margin of the order sheet.

               On the other hand in support of his allegations that the tab was marred by manufacturing defects complainant placed on record copy of retail invoice and copy of job card. Therefore we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for entitlement of refund of cost of tab in view of supportive material placed on record.

                            Therefore in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to pay to complainant sum of Rs.8000/ I.e.the cost of tab. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10000/ for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.10000/.The OPs shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs. On deposit of the amount in this Forum the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            Khalil Choudhary                                                           

                                                                              Distt. and Sessions Judge

Announced                                                                President

30/01/2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                                                            

 Member  

 

 Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member