Punjab

Sangrur

CC/217/2015

Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Datawind - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Bhushan K.Garg

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    217

                                                Instituted on:      20.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       19.08.2015

 

 

Harbans Singh son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of H.No.103, Ward No.4, Delhi Mandir Street, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Datawind, 583, East Mohan Singh Nagar, Dhan Dhan Baba Deep Singh Ji Complex, Amritsar through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2.             Tablets Investments India Private Limited, Khasra No.605, Near Tata Telco Service Station, A Block, Village Rangpuri (Mahilapuri) New Delhi-110 037 through its Managing Director.

3.             National Computers, Outside Sunami Gate, Near Guru Nanak School, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3              :               Shri Amandeep Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Harbans Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on seeing the advertisement of the product of OP number 1, complainant online purchased a Datawind Tab Model Ubislate 7CZ for Rs.3799/- vide invoice dated 27.10.2014 and the same was having a warranty of one year.  It is further stated that the complainant opened the box of tab and saw that on/off and volume nob was not present and found that the tab was having manufacturing defect. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant approached OP number 1 through customer care number 18001802180 and told about the defect and lodged complaint, who apprised to approach OP number 3, the service centre of OP number 1. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP number 3, who kept the tab with him and issued work order sheet dated 13.11.2014 and assured that the same will be sent to OP number 1 for removing the defect. It is further stated that the complainant visited the OP number 3 so many times for collecting the same, but all in vain.  It is further stated that the complainant could not use the TAB even for a single day. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the complainant the amount of Rs.3799/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 27.10.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OPs number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service on 29.05.2015, as such, they were proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections have been taken up that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into uncalled litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant approached the OP number 3 on 13.11.2014 and received the tab and further sent the same to R.V. Solutions, who is the authorised service provider for PAN India for necessary repairs and parts, which were missing from the Tab.  It is stated that the same was not sent by the R.V. Solutions despite sending of so many mails, as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. It is also stated that the Tab has to be replaced by the company and not by OP number 3.  It is stated that the TAB was received on 18.4.2015 and thereafter the OP number 3 intimated the complainant, but the complainant refused to receive the TAB. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of job sheet dated 13.11.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of bill dated 27.10.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4 copies of emails and Ex.OP3/5  affidavit of Sarabjit Singh and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill dated 27.10.2014 issued by OP number 2 to the complainant for sale of the Ubislate 7CZ tablet for Rs.3799/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tab in question from OP number 2 through OP number 1 and availed the services of the OP number 3 being the service centre of OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that the tab in question was not having any on/off and volume nob from the very date of its purchase and the same fact has also been reported in the copy of job order sheet dated 13.11.2014 issued by National Computers that “Fault reported by customer : On/Off and Vol. nob not present from origin”, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.  We have also perused the copies of the emails sent by Op number 3, which are on record as Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/4, which clearly reveals that the OPs failed to set right the tablet in question for more than 140 days of its deposit with the OP number 3.  The OPs number 1 and 2 are already exparte and have not appeared before this Forum to contest their case. Further OP number 3 Shri Sarabjit Singh has also produced his own sworn affidavit which clearly reveals that he sent so many emails to the R.V. Solutions to resolve the complaint of the complainant and has also produced the copies of the mails on record. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the complainant did not use the tablet in question even for a day and from the very date of its purchase, it was having the problem therein as stated above.  Further the Ops have failed to set right the problem for a long period of 140 days and the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum. As such, it appears to be a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia versus Ankush Kapoor and others 2007(1) CLT 614, wherein the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant was giving problem from the very beginning and the same did not work despite repairs of the OP. It was held by the Hon’ble UT State Commission Chandigarh that the complainant deserves the refund of the amount along with interest and compensation and costs.  Further Goa State Consumer Commission in Accel Frontline Ltd. versus Sunil Gopinath Parulekar 2014(1) CPJ 90 has held that when service to be provided is not prompt, it has to be considered as deficient.  Such a delay cannot be justified and amounts to deficiency in service. We feel that the above said ruling is fully applicable in the circumstances of the case.

 

7.             It is further on record that the tablet in question is lying with the OPs and not with the complainant since 13.11.2014.  This fact is also mentioned in the reply filed by OP number 3.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that OP number 3 has come to the Forum with clean hands and OP number 3 has promptly sent the tab in question to OPs for repairs, but it is the Ops number 1 and 2, who have not returned the tab in question to the Op number 3 for onward delivery to the complainant after necessary repairs.  As such, Op number 3 cannot be held liable for any negligence.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 1 and 2 and accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount 3799/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.04.2015 till realisation in full. We further order Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 19, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member