Order-9.
Date-14/09/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Santanu Dutta by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one Mobile Tablet PC, Brand DELL, Code No. 12701, Model No. VENUE8 16GB (Calling) along with related accessories against a total payment of Rs. 17,000/- on 17.03.2015, vide Invoice No. AUD/1250/14 from the op.
From the very beginning it was found that the above said Mobile Tablet was not functioning properly.Therefore on 21.03.2015 the complainant visited the Sales Counter of op to report the details of the problem related to the above said product to op.But on that day one Salesperson of op advised the complainant to continue to use the said Mobile Tab for another 4/5 days, with an assurance that the existing problems may disappear.But getting no result complainant was advised to contact the op.
Then on the basis of the assurance of op, complainant tried to use the above said Mobile Tab for another 4/5 days, but no improvement was detected and for which on 26.03.2015 complainant visited the op’s Sales counter where the op’s sales person on hearing the complaint took back the above said Mobile Tab and replaced with another similar set bearing No. S/TAG No. 52P022.
But unfortunately with the new exchange set which was given to the complainant on 26.03.2015 also contained similar problemsand on hearing the complain again by the complainant, op kept the set and said that the set will be sent to Service Centre and advised the complainant to collect back the set after five days.Complainant after five days went to collect the Tab Phone but op informed that the said Tab set has not yet reached them from the Service Centre.
Again on 08.04.2015 following some conversation between the op and complainant, op again replaced the Tab Mobile set with another set of the same model bearing No. S/TAG No. 7220222 to the complainant.But peculiar fact is that even after same problem was recurred.So, the complainant on 09.04.2015 again visited the op and requested the op to replace the product with some other model of higher price if any, with better set without any defect.But this proposal of the complainant was flatly turned down by the op.
Following this development, it was obvious for the complainant to presume that the very model of the Tab Mobile might contain the similar defects, because even after exchanging three times with the similar model, the similar problems recurred. Therefore accepting the same model repeatedly would culminate into a recurrent problem and recurrent issue of dispute with the op and due to this reason complainant demanded a different Model which would be hassle free. But that was denied by the op and op has failed to take any action and for which complainant has filed this complaint praying for justice and redressal from the op when op again and again harassed the complainant by selling such item without giving any proper service.
In the above circumstances, complainant prayed for refund of price money and also compensation against the op.
Fact remains that notice was served upon the op and on 16.07.2015 on behalf of op written reply was submitted that fact remains that complainant purchased it and they always helped him to replace the same.There was no deficiency when complainant came to op, op asked the complainant to go to Service Centre.But complainant did not go for which he did not get any relief and in the above situation they have their no fault and if there is any manufacturing defect or the problem is neglectful in that case the manufacturer shall have to give such relief.But considering the above condition accordingly the case is closed.
Fact remains that in this case op did not file any written version stating any affidavit only sent a letter which was received by the Forum on 06.08.2015 and copy was received by them.Thereafter op did not turn up.So, after considering the entire matter and materials on record, the case was heard finally for decision.
Decision with reasons
On comparative study of the complaint and document, it is found that no doubt complainant purchased the said Tablet Mobile from the op and op by his letter stated that complainant always went to the shop of op and op replaced the same.But similar defect was detected by the complainant and on the 3rd occasion op reported the complainant to go to the Service Centre.But complainant did not go and there was no fault on the part of the op.
But considering the entire letter of the op it is clear that op was aware of the fact that similar type of item was sold by the op to the complainant.But again and again same defect was detected that means op was aware of the fact very well that there was some manufacturing defect.But even then only to give a hoax one after another but complainant did not get any relief, in that case it is the duty of seller to sell very item of the company which is free from all defects.
But in the present case it is found that op knowing fully well about particular defect of the Mobile sold to the complainant and one after another time changed the same as same defect was detected at the time of use and ultimately op replaced but op at the time of sale did not supply any warranty card and from the receipt it is found that it was always changed.But even then problem was there.Then no doubt as a seller, it is the liability of the seller to sell a very item free from all defects when there is no note of any warranty in the receipt.But warranty is there and that warranty is no doubt of the op and op has admitted that there is one year warranty and op replaced the same or refund the amount because seller has some liability and business responsibility to sell any item which is free from any defect to the customer.
In the present case op has realized that the particular set has manufacturing defect but that was not reported.The set was not sent by the op to theauthority from whom he purchased it and in fact the present op is running such a business for long years and it is their business to sell and to harass the customer and in the present case, complainant suffered much for deceitful manner of trade.
So, in the above circumstances, complainant rightly went to the op because op entertained always but on the 3rd occasion op did not replace.But op cannot refuse it.But receiving back the same op ought to have returned the entire amount and that is the consumer market policy.Satisfaction of the consumer is a prime consideration to a seller and seller must have to sell the goods against consideration always and to supply a defect free item and if it is not followed in that case it is no doubt unfair trade practice on the part of the seller and considering the conduct of the op, it is clear that some compensation must be given to the customer by the op for harassing the complainant.
In the present case it is proved that op sold the defectivegoods with knowledge, then it is legal liability on the part of the op to refund the said amount or to replace a new set which is free from all defects.But the attitude of the op in the present case is found a deceitful manner of activities and it is no doubt deceitful manner of trade only to deceive the customer in such a manner.But for selling such sort of disputed item to complainant no doubt complainant has suffered much because without a Tablet (Mobile) a person cannot pass a day and it is highly required daily to use it.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that op has caused mental pain and suffering and also adopted unfair trade practice for which complainant is entitled to get a decree.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Op is directed to refund the entire price amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.So, op shall have to pay Rs. 17,000/- + price money of Tablet set Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost, so in total Rs. 37,000/- shall have to pay within one month from the date of this order failing which op shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if op is reluctant to comply the order, in that case op shall be penalized u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the op.
Op shall have to deposit the entire amount before this Forum in cash to satisfy the decree and complainant shall have to handover the said Tablet Set to the op in open Forum within one month from the date of this order otherwise the order shall be shifted against the op.
