DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.594/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
19.09.2016 29.09.2016 19.05.2017
Complainant = Vs. = O.P.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty, 1. Dell India Pvt. Ltd,
D/o. Dilip Mohan Chakraborty, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A,
Panchatantra Housing Complex, Divya Shree Greens
Block-C, 3rd floor, Koramangala Ring Road,
Flat No. 12, Challahatta, Varthur, Hobli,
Taki Road, Barasat, Bangalore/ Bangaluru,
Kolkata-7000124, Karnataka- 560036.
Dist- North 24 Parganas. 2. The Manager and / or to
Whom it may concern
Syscom Infotech,
Koyal Complex,
Dakbanglow More,
P.S. Barasat, Dist- 24 Pgs(N),
Kolkata- 700127.
3. Dell Service Centre,
Plot No.32A, 1st floor, Block-‘A’,
Trust House,
Chittaranjan Avenue,
Kolkata- 700012.
P R E S E N T :- Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay…President
:- Smt. Kabita Acharjee(Goswami)……Member
J U D G E M E N T
This case has been filed by the complainant- Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty on 19.09.2016 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against Dell India Pvt. Ltd and others.
The facts of the case, to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The complainant is the consumer under the O.Ps. O.P. No.1 is the manufacturing company of the disputed Tablet. The O.P. No.2 is the seller and dealer of Dell product. The O.P. No.2 is also the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.1, manufacturing company of the Tablet. On 07.08.2015 the complainant purchased a Tablet from O.P. No.2 at the cost of Rs. 7,700/-. Since the purchase it
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..2/-
C. C. Case No.-594/2016
- :: 2 :: -
was not working properly and the complainant informed the same to O.P. No.2 and requested replacement. The O.P. no.2 replaced the Dell Tablet and sold a better model for which the complainant paid some more money. On 07.08.2015 the bill was issued for Dell digital Tablet (Model No. ‘Venue 7’) at the consideration price of Rs. 10,799/-. The complainant paid out the balance money of Rs. 3,000/- by two cheques. Again the new gadget was not working properly. The complaint was lodged for repairing / servicing before the O.P. No.1. O.P. No.3 kept the Tablet in their custody and returns the same after more than a month through O.P. No.2. After getting back the tablet the complainant found that it was not functioning properly. The O.P. No.2 was requested to replace the defective tablet but in vain. A legal notice was thereafter sent on 02.05.2016 requesting O.P. No.1 with a copy to other O.Ps for replacement. The O.P. no.1 replied to the notice without showing in any intention to replace the same.
Hence, the complainant filed the case with a prayer to refund of Rs. 10,799/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant also prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental agony and another Rs. 1,50,000/- for unnecessary harassment.
The complainant has further prayed for payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards Consumer Welfare Fund by the O.Ps and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
The O.Ps did not turn up to contest the case although the notices were received by them (vide the track reports in the file). Hence, the case went ex-parte. Order No.3 dated 05.12.2016 makes mention to that effect. Order No. 7 dated 27.03.2017 shows that the case went ex- parte.
From the pleadings of the parties the following points have been framed for decision:-
1). Is the complainant a consumer?
2). Have the O.Ps resorted unfair trade practice?
3). Are the O.Ps deficient in service?
3). What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
Reasoned Decision
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. Before we discuss the points, let us look at the documentary evidence.
The following documents have been filed by the complainant:-
1). Tax Invoice.
2). An Advocate’s Letters dated 02.05.2016.
3). A letter dated 09.05.2016.
4). Track Consignments dated 17.10.2016, 07.10.2016.
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..3/-
C. C. Case No.-594/2016
- :: 3 :: -
The affidavit-in-chief was filed by the complainant on 02.03.2017.
The BNA was filed by the complainant on 27.03.2017 .
The unchallenged testimony of Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty, the complainant has established the case and naturally she is entitled to get relief. But as the complainant used the gadget for about a year she should get the depreciation value of the same which in our opinion would be 20% less of the price and hence she should get Rs. 8,639/- as retrun of price of the tablet.
We are inclined to hold that all the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we quantify compensation as Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
Hence,
Ordered,
that the instant complaint case is allowed ex parte.
The O.Ps are directed to pay jointly and severally the depreciated cost of the tablet amounting to Rs. 8,639/- along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- in total Rs. 15,639/- within 19.06.2017, failing which the sum shall carry interest of 6% till the date of realization.
The complainant is directed to return the tablet to the O.P. No.2 -seller by 19.06.2017.
Copy be delivered to the parties free of cost.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
