Delhi

North

RBT/CC/247/2022

SH. AMRIT LAL CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DATAWIND - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

RBT/CC No.: 247/2022

 

Sh. Amrit Lal Chawla

S/o R.L. Chawla, R/o B-14

Vandana Appartment, Sector-13

Rohini, Delhi-110085.                                          …                     Complainant

                                                          Vs

M/s.  Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

SCO-94, City Centre

Opposite Guru Nanak Bhawan

Near Hotel Holiday Comfort

Amritsar-143006                                                 …            Opposite Party No.1

 

Mobifone (Rohini, Delhi)

G-3/73, Sector-16

Near Jain Bharti School,

Rohini, Delhi-110085                                          …            Opposite Party No.2

ORDER/

                                                           11/05/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

1        The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that on 02.05.2016,  Complainant, after watching TV Advertisement of Naptol, placed an Order No. 22438816 to Opposite Party No.1, for delivery of Calling Tablet. The Opposite Party No.1 delivered calling tablet to Complainant through speed Post from their delivery agent M/s Tablets Investments India Private Limited vide EMS invoice no. 847467/DL/0162534/2016-2017 dated 02.05.2016. From the day of purchase, the above said mobile tablet was having charging problem. The Complainant submitted the mobile tablet to Opposite Party No.2/authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1, on 17.07.2016. The tablet was in warranty period of one year. The calling tablet again had a problem with respect to charging, the Complainant submitted the above said tablet on 13.04.2017 with Opposite Party No.2. Copies of job sheets have been filed with the complaint. Emails sent to OP are also filed. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 has not returned the tablet till date. Whenever Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2, it was informed that the tablet has been sent for replacement to Opposite Party No.1. Complainant repeatedly visited to office of Opposite Party No.2, for collecting said calling tablet but Opposite Parties have done nothing to correct or replace the tablet. In the meantime, the Complainant was compelled to purchase Samsung Mobile for Rs.9,200/- on 09.07.2017 as he was not having mobile phone to communicate. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed for direction to Opposite Parties:-

a. Refund the cost of the calling tablet;

b. Pay the amount of mobile phone worth Rs.9,200/- which Complainant has purchased of personal on 09.07.2017, when Opposite party failed to return the calling tablet.

c. Pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) for the harassment of Complainant and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) for mental agony caused to him, owing to failure of Opposite Party in not delivering the calling tablet in working condition, till date.

d. Pay Rs.20,000/- to Complainant towards the cost of this litigation.

e. Pass any such other or further orders or directions which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

 

2.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response to the Notices issued, only  OP-1 appeared and final opportunity was awarded to him for filing reply subject to cost of Rs.500/-. Since OP-2 did not appear despite service, he was proceeded ex-parte.  Since the OP-1 failed to file the reply within the time granted, his right to file reply/WS was closed on 04-09-2018. However, lateron he was allowed to file evidence and written arguments which were filed. Further, the OP-1 was allowed to argue on payment of total cost of Rs.1000/- which was not paid and case was not argued.

3.       In the evidence and written arguments filed by OP-1, it has been stated that the Complainant bought a calling tablet on 02.05.2016 from OP No.1 and alleged that the same was having charging problem from date of purchase and the said mobile tablet was returned to OP No.2 only on 13.04.2017. It is stated that had there been any problem in the mobile tablet, the same would have been reported to OP No.1 on day one and the same was never done by the Complainant meaning thereby that there was no error/ problem with the said mobile tablet at all. Had there been so, the onus is upon the Complainant to prove the same at the time of date of purchase and no document whatsoever has been filed by the Complainant to prove that there was any alleged problem in the said mobile tablet on date of purchase. It has further been stated by the OP-1 that the Complainant used the said mobile tablet for more than a year and only after that allegedly returned the same to OP No.2. The said fact is an admitted fact as is averred in the consumer complaint by the Complainant itself.          

4.       Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and material on record and it has been observed that:-

a). The tablet purchased by the Complainant was within the warranty period of one year when the charging problem was noticed  and the tablet was given for repair to the authorised service centre of OP-1 on two occasions on 17.07.2016 and 13.04.2017 for repair of the defects.

b). The aforesaid calling tablet has not been returned back to the Complainant after 13-04-2017 till date after removal of the defects.

c)  Purchasing  a mobile phone worth Rs.9,200/- on 09.07.2017 by the  Complainant on the failure of Opposite party to return the calling tablet, was the decision of complainant at his own for which OP can not be held responsible.

 

5.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP-1 (M/s.  Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd.)  in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.

               

6.    Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s.  Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd.) to pay Rs.3398/- (Rupees Ninteen Thousand Ninety Nine only) within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 23-01-2018 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP-2 is also directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

 

Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

       ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                        HARPREET KAUR CHARYA  

Member                                                                          Member

  DCDRC-1 (North)                                                          DCDRC-1 (North)

 

 

 

          DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                                                                                           President       

                                                                                                   DCDRC-1 (North)