Rajender Singh filed a consumer case on 16 Nov 2015 against Flipkart India in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/162/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Nov 2015.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/162/2015
Rajender Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Flipkart India - Opp.Party(s)
In person
16 Nov 2015
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
============
Consumer Complaint No
:
CC/162/2015
Date of Institution
:
13/03/2015
Date of Decision
:
16/11/2015
Rajender Singh son of Sh. Mata Ram, resident of House No. 835, Sector 19, Panchkula.
….Complainant
Vs.
[1] Flipkart India, National Highway 8, Mahipalpur Village, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.(Deleted vide order dated 08.10.2015).
[2] M/s H.C.L. Infosystems Limited, HCL Service Centre, SCO No.66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
[3] M/s H.C.L. Infosystems Limited, Regd. Office 806, Siddharth 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Signatory.
…… Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. SURJEET KAUR PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER
For Complainant
:
Complainant in person.
For OP No.1
:
Deleted
For OP No.2
:
Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate.
PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER
The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased a HCL ME Sync 1.0 (U3) Tablet (White, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4GB) for an amount of Rs.4190/-, vide Bill dated 13.03.2014 (Annexure C-1) from Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Flipkart India), with one year warranty. After one month of its purchase, the Tablet, in question, developed problems of Hanging, Charging and non-saving of data, due to which it was deposited with Opposite Party No.2 on 15.04.2014, for repairs, vide Service Order/Job Card Annexure C-2. After some days, the Tablet, duly repaired, was delivered back by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant. It has been alleged that the aforesaid problems soon re-surfaced, on account of which the Complainant had again deposited the Tablet with Opposite Party No.2, on 29.08.2014, vide Service Order/Job Card Annexure C-3. This time also, the Opposite Party No.2 delivered the Tablet to the Complainant, after carrying out necessary repairs. However, the turmoil of the Complainant did not stop here, as the Tablet again encountered similar problems, due to which again he had to deposit the Tablet with Opposite Party No.2, for carrying out necessary repairs, vide Service Order/Job Card dated 20.01.2015 Annexure C-4. The Complaint, thereafter, made repeated visits to the office of Opposite Party No.2, to get the delivery of his Tablet, but every time, he was put off on one pretext or the other. It has been averred that since 20.01.2015, the Tablet, in question, was lying with Opposite Party No.2, as it (OP No.2) failed to rectify the defects therein. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.
Opposite Party No.1 had filed an application for removal of its name from the array of Parties. In view of the no objection recorded by the Complainant, on the application itself, the name of Opposite Party No.1 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 08.10.2015.
Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 15.4.2014 and 29.8.2014 with the issue of charging, non-saving of data and hanging. After carrying out the necessary repairs, the Tablet, in question, was handed over to the Complainant to his full satisfaction. Thereafter, the Complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the same issues in the product on 20.01.2015. Since the product in question developed same technical snag, again and again, the answering Opposite Parties offered a replacement to the Complainant, which he declined. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
The Complainant also filed replication to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have been controverted.
Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and have perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.
It is evident from Bill (Annexure C-1) that the Complainant purchased one HCL ME Sync 1.0 (U3) Tablet (White, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4GB) for Rs.4,190/- on 13.03.2014 from Opposite Party No.1. Annexure C-2 to C-4 are the various job sheets, placed on record by the Complainant, to show that the Tablet, in question, was handed over by him, to the Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre), for repairs, on 15.04.2014, 29.08.2014 and 20.01.2015 with the problems of Hanging, Charging and non-saving of Data. Annexure C-5 are the various e-mails sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 explaining his grievance, which was never redressed by them.
The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have contended in Para No. 10 of their reply, that since the product, in question, was developing the same technical snag, again and again, which seems to be irreparable in nature, the Complainant was offered a replacement with the same product, which he resisted. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, they (OPs No.2 & 3) have miserably failed to place on record any cogent, convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence to show that the aforesaid offer was ever made to the Complainant and it was declined by him.
Evidently, the Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.4,190/- to purchase the Tablet having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.
In our opinion due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, the Complainant has certainly suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 to satisfy the Complainant by getting his Tablet repaired in a perfect manner or replace it with a new one, but they have miserably failed to do so. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 in not rectifying the defective Tablet, especially when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Importantly, the Tablet in question is still lying in the possession of the Opposite Party No.2.
In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are, directed to:-
[a] To refund Rs.4190/-to the Complainant being the invoice price of HCL ME Sync 1.0 (U3) Tablet (White, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4GB) Tablet;
[b] To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;
[c] To pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.
The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.
Announced
16th November, 2015
Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.