Order No. 8 dt. 01/03/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased online a Dell Tab through o.p. no.2 vide order dt.27.3.15. Immediately after the purchase of the said tab the complainant found that there were several problems. The complainant went to Dell Service Centre at Kolkata and handed over the tab for repairing on 8.8.15. The service centre returned the tab after one month but the complainant found that the tab became hot within 10 minutes and other functions were not being done properly. The complainant thereafter again went to o.p. no.1 and lodged the complaint and the repairing was made. Subsequently the function of the tab was stopped for which the complainant went to o.p. no.1 but o.p. no.1refused to accept the tab with the plea that the warranty period has already expired. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the amount of Rs.12,999/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.1 is the service centre, therefore they have no role to play regarding the manufacturing defect of the said tab. The o.p. no.2 stated that the Flipcart being the carrier of the product and therefore no adverse order can be passed against o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the tab through online.
- Whether the tab had the manufacturing defect.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant herself argued the case and stated that she purchased the Dell Tab from o.p. no.1, immediately after the said purchase she noticed several problems for which she brought it to the notice of o.p. no.1, but no effective step was taken by o.p. no.1 for which the complainant had to file this case praying for refund of the amount paid by her for purchasing the said tab as well as for compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that o.p. no.2 is carrying on business for sale of goods manufactured / produced by others and there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and o.p. nos.2 & 3 ceases immediately after delivering of the said tab to the complainant and after said delivery o.p. no.2 cannot be held responsible for any contractual obligation to the complainant. In view of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant purchased a Dell Tab from o.p. no.1. In order to prove the said purchase the complainant filed some documents which has not been denied by o.ps. It is also an admitted fact that the tab was delivered through o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.2 was not manufacturer of the said product. The o.p. no.1 is a service centre. It is the function of the service centre to render assistance to the customer in case of any defect arise in the product purchased by the customer in respect of the product manufactured by Dell. The o.p. no.1 is not manufacturer of the product. It appears from the record that the complainant in her evidence as well as in the complaint petition specifically stated that she repeatedly went to o.p. no.1 for repairing of the said tab and o.p. no.1 assisted the complainant in removing the defects of the said tab. In spite of repairing it was found that the tab has several problems which should be considered that there was a manufacturing defect but the complainant failed to make the manufacturer of the tab as a party in this case, since there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the complainant failed to make the manufacturer of the product as a party in this case, therefore we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.62/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
