Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 253.
Instituted on : 05.06.2018.
Decided on : 03.10.2019.
Shiv Kumar c/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Opposite State Bank of Patiala, Meham-124112(Haryana).
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Aakash Tablet Tilak Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (datawind.aftersales.in).
- Datawind Ubislate Office Address(India)-563 Baba Deep Singh Complex, East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar-143001.
- Shree Balaji Services, Shop No.8, Durga Medicine Market, Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K.Sehrawat,, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 given up.
Sh.S.S.Kinha, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased 7sc star Tablet on dated 24.01.2017. The alleged tablet worked for 20 days and after 20 days, the battery of the alleged tablet get burst. That complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 and a job sheet dated 31.03.2017 was issued by the opposite party No.3. After that complainant contacted the opposite party after regular invervals of 15-20 days but the defect was not removed and it was told that by the opposites party No.3 that alleged tablet was sent to the company for repair. Complainant made a written complaint to opposite party no.2 on dated 09.04.2018 but no reply was received. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, the defect of alleged tablet could not be removed by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of tablet in question alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 was given up by the complainant on dated 11.06.2019 being unnecessary party. Notice sent to opposite party No.3 received back served. But opposite party No.3 failed to appear before this Forum and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.01.2019 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 appeared but failed to file any reply despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such, defence for filing reply by opposite party no.2 was struck off vide order dated 11.06.2019 of this Forum.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 05.08.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 failed to file any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such, defence for filing evidence by opposite party no.2 was struck off vide order dated 27.09.2019 of this Forum
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the tablet in question on 24.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.3300/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C3. As per job sheet Ex.C2, there was battery back up problem in the alleged tablet and as per repair details, PCB was faulty. As per complaint made by the complainant to the company, the alleged Datawind tablet became defective only within 20 days due to battery burst. As per this complaint, he tried to contact the company so many times but no satisfactory reply was received and no action was taken. On the other hand opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party No.3 has nothing to say in the matter. Opposite party No.2 neither filed any reply nor evidence and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding selling the defective datawind tablet stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.2 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of tablet in question to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the price of Rs.3300/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.05.06.2018 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The tablet in question is already in the possession of opposite party No.3.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.10.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
