Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/414

Dr.Lakhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Classic Gifts - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 414 of 30.05.2016

Date of Decision          :   16.12.2016

 

Dr.Lakhwinder Singh s/o Late S.Ranjit Singh r/o Bhagwan Pura Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Classic Gifts, Malti Brand Showroom of Mobile Phones, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

2.Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd., Second Floor, Bittu Complex, 3697/2, Zone D, Above PNB Bank, Opposite A One Chicken, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

3.I-Ball, 87, Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross Road “A” Andheri (E), Mumbai 400093, through its Manager/Managing Director.

4.I-Ball, C 44/2, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi-20, through its Manager/Director.

5.App Shield Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Corp.Office First Floor 73 South Model Gram Ludhiana.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

SH.PARA JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant           :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Ex-parte         

For OP2 to OP4             :         Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Service Manager

For OP5                         :         Complaint already dismissed as withdrawn vide

order dated 06.09.2016.

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the complainant is that he purchased a I Ball Tab Q 40 having IMEI No.8902968244408 vide bill No.923 dated 01.06.2015 for Rs.4700/- from OP1,so that his children may play the games thereon.   The tab was disclosed to be manufactured by reputed company. Assurance was given to the effect that it will work properly. However, since beginning, tab started creating problem. It used to stop without starting the game. Even tab could not be charged properly. The complainant got the tab checked on 12.8.2015 from OP2, who later on handed over the same to complainant with the assurance that it will work properly in future and will not create any problem. After sometime, the tab again stopped working and giving the same problem. On 5.4.2016, complainant approached OP1 and OP2 for removal of the defect in the tab. Op2 disclosed the complainant that the screen of the tab had broken and same will be replaced on cost. Complainant requested to repair the same on cost. Rs.1527/- were paid by the complainant to OP2 on 23.4.2016 for repair of the tab. Even after repair, the tab continued to give the same problem. After repair, same returned to the complainant with assurance that it will not give problem in future. Op1 charged Rs.499/- from the complainant through his agent i.e. OP5. Op2 was requested to replace the tab being defective set, but said OP claimed that it has been repaired properly and will not give trouble in future. Thereafter, again the tab started creating problem. Battery backup of the tab goes very low. After using the tab for 10 minutes, the tab stopped due to low battery. On 9.5.2016, the complainant again approached OP1 and OP2 for replacement.Tab was deposited with OP2 for repair and the same is still lying with him. Manufacturing defect alleged to have occurred in tab within warranty period. On account of this, it is claimed that complainant entitled for replacement of the tab. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7500/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OP2 to OP4, it is pleaded interalia as if Ops have provided best services during warranty period to the satisfaction of the complainant and as such, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant. Besides, it is claimed that tab after repair is ready for delivery since from 17.5.2016, qua which intimation given to the complainant with request to collect the same from OP2, but the complainant has not visited the said service centre for collecting the duly repaired tab. Complaint alleged to be false, being filed for extorting illegal amount. OP2 to OP4 claims that firstly, tab was deposited on 12.8.2015 with the problem of no power and OP2 after due rectification of the defect, returned the tab to the complainant on 2.9.2016. Then after 7 months, complainant again visited the service centre on 5.4.2016 and after checking the tab, it was found that LCD is in damaged condition. That type of damage was not covered under the warranty and the same fact was communicated to the complainant. Complainant was called upon to pay Rs.1627/- as repair charges and after obtaining his consent, the repair of the same carried out by OP2. Again on 9.5.2016, the complainant visited OP2 regarding problem of battery backup. Due repair was done by OP2 and thereafter, intimation for collection of the repaired tab sent to the complainant many times, but he himself did not turn up for collecting the same. Warranty of the tab expired on 1.6.2016. No company by name of I-ball is in existence. Complaint alleged to be filed in wrong name. Other averments of the complaint denied, but purchase of the tab in question by the complainant not denied.

3.                OP1 is ex-parte in this case and complaint against OP5 has already been withdrawn by counsel for the complainant by suffering statement on 6.9.2016 in that respect.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, representative of OP2 to OP4 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of complainant and representative of OP2 to OP4 heard and records gone through minutely.

7.                Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Service Manager in office of OP2  as representative for OP2 to OP4 suffered statement today that warranty of the repaired tab will be extended for six more months w.e.f. from the date of receipt of the repaired tab by the complainant. Further, as per that recorded statement, warranty will not be extended regarding the damage caused to the tab by external force (if any). OP2 to OP4 will remain bound by this statement suffered by their representative and as such, order has to be passed accordingly.

8.                It is contended by representative of OP2 to OP4 that tab is ready for delivery and charges for repair has already been received, but the complainant himself not turned up for collecting the repaired tab. No communication sent to the complainant regarding readiness of the tab in question after repair has been produced and as such, it has to be held that Ops have failed to prove that they actually sent intimation to the complainant regarding tab lying duly repaired since from 17.5.2016. Had the tab actually been ready for delivery after repair after 17.5.2016, then Ops would have sent the intimation in writing to the complainant and that writing would have been produced. Owing to non production of any documentary evidence or proof qua intimation of readiness of tab after repair, it has to be inferred that actually the complainant was never informed about the readiness of the repaired tab. So, Ops have withheld the tab from the complainant w.e.f.17.5.2016 onwards till date. The complaint was filed on 30.5.2016 and as such, complaint has to be filed by the complainant due to non receipt of any intimation qua readiness of the repaired tab lying with OP2 to OP4. That readiness is expressed through written statement or through suffered statement only and as such, complainant stood harassed mentally due to deprivation of use of tab for long period. In such circumstances, ends of justice warrants that OP2 to OP4 should be directed to handover the repaired tab to the complainant within specified period, but in case, complainant willing to accept the tab before that specified period, then concerned Ops will hand over the repaired tab to the complainant against receipt immediately.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP2 to OP4 will hand over the repaired tab to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, in case, complainant approaches OP2 to OP4 before this period of 30 days, then Tab will be handed over to the complainant against receipt immediately. Warranty of the repaired tab will be extended for six months from the date of receipt of the tab by the complainant. However, warranty will not be extended regarding damage caused to the tab by external force (if any). Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2 to OP4. Liability of OP2 to OP4 for paying the aforesaid compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant will be joint and several. Compliance of paying awarded compensation and litigation expenses be made by OP2 to OP4 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complaint against OP1 is dismissed and it is already dismissed as withdrawn against OP5 through sufferance of statement on 6.9.2016 by counsel for the complainant.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Vinod Bala)        (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

   Member                  Member                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.