Delhi

East Delhi

CC/680/2014

SABIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL INFOSYSTEM - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST GOVT OF NCT DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^ST FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                                                                                      Consumer complaint no.        680/2014

                                                                                                      Date of institution               31/07/2014

                                                                                                      Order reserved on               06/09/2017

                                                                                                      Date of order                       11/08/2017

In matter of -

Mr. Sabir Hussain

S/o Shri Sharafat Hussain

R/o P-10 St. No.17,

Brahmpuri, New Seelampur, Delhi-110053………………………………………Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd.,

D-233, Sector-63, NOIDA,

Gautam Budh Nagar,

1.  

 

2. M/s PACE COMPUTECH Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop No. 2, Aggarwal Chamber,

Main Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092……………………………………………………..Opponents

 

Quorum                      Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                    Dr. P N Tiwari             Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member

 

Brief facts of the case

 

Complainant purchased a ME Tablet Model Connect 3G 2.0 bearing S. No. 0813YCC3G2DIT04950 ON 31/08/2013 manufactured by OP-1 (M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd.,) for a sum of Rs.11,800/- vide invoice bill No. R1/13-14/01-58 dated 31/08/2013 from OP-2 (M/s Pace Computech Pvt. Ltd.,). It was stated that warranty card was given by OP-2 (Ex. CW1/1, CW1/A). The said Tablet started giving trouble as its FM Radio was not working, so he approached OP-2, software was installed and the problem was resolved. Thereafter, it was stated that the camera was also not functioning properly and battery consumed very fast. So the complainant made complaint on customer care number 1860-1800-425 and he received call from company service centre Touch, HCL Info Systems Ltd., Ground Floor, Premises N Veer Savarkar Block, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur Delhi. The complainant took the Tablet to service centre and it was told to come after 2-3 days. The complainant went to the service station, it was informed that Tablet Mother Board was defective and has to be changed, and it will be ordered from Chennai. So, it was told to get in touch in 3-4 days time. It is stated that after the lapse of 2 months neither PCB was changed nor camera’s defect was rectified by service centre. But after repeated visit the service centre handed over the tablet stating that PCB Board has been replaced and set was ok. It was stated that after using the said Tablet for 15 days it started developing hanging out problem for which he again contacted the service centre. Again it was repaired and returned to him after 2-3 days, but the tablet was neither accessing the internet nor reading the SIM Card. The complainant again visited the service centre and consented his problem. The service centres after checking the Tablet on 24/12/2013 Job Sheet was prepared vide No. 8400361824. After some time when complainant could not receive any information from authorized service centre, he lodged his complaint on OP-1 telephone no. 0120-2406105 who assured that he will be replied with in short dated and suitable information will be given. On 24/02/2014 complainant received a call from service centre at Shakarpur to collect the tablet, on checking, the tablet camera was still not functioning, so it was again given to the service centre and it was advised again to collect by the next date.

It was stated that on the next date he received a call and informed that the camera cannot be repaired but the original PCB will be replaced as soon as it will be received from the company. Despite repeated visit, telephonic calls and also sent number of E-mails (CW1/5 to CW1/8), he did not receive any satisfactory reply its defect remained as they were existing like camera not working and no new PCB was replaced. Thereafter complainant again contacted on 09/04/2014 vide job sheet no. 8400-406171 and the tablet was deposited with service station and even after passage of stipulated time complainant neither received any telephonic call and e-mail for the tablet to be repaired. So, he sent a legal notice (Ex. CW1/9) on 22/04/2014 for which also no reply was received till filing of this complaint. Thus he claimed a refund of cost of the tablet of Rs.11,800/- with 24% interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.15,000 for litigation charges.

After receiving the notice OP-1 filed a joint written statement and denied of the allegation as wrong and false. It was stated that the tablet which was purchased from their authorized outlet that is OP-2 had no defect and standard warranty was given as per warranty card on record. It was ever admitted that HCL Tablet vide serial no. 0813YCC3G2DIT04950 ON 31/08/2013. It was stated the reported problem were rectified after thoroughly examined by service engineer, PCB was replaced and torch with camera flex was changed on their service centre. The tablet was handed over after defective piece were replaced in good working condition. OP also took reference from judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, First Appeal No. 209/1991 as M/S E.I.D Parry India Ltd., Vs Baby Benjamin Thushara, which was decided on 23/03/1992, where it was held that if complainant is alleging any manufacturing defect then expert opinion be annexed with complaint, in absence of the expert opinion complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP stated that the complainant has neither put any evidence of defects in his tablet through evidence from job sheet or any opinion. Hence the complaint is based on false allegations and thus complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Complainant did not file his rejoinder but filed his evidence by way of affidavit, where he stated on affidavit and affirmed on oath that alleged defects raised in his complaint were true and correct and all related evidence has been put on record.

OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit through Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, working as Dy. Manager Legal & representative of OP-1 who stated on oath that all the facts and evidence in their written statement were correct and true. The complainant has not submitted any evidence to support his allegation of deficiency. In such condition the complaint may be dismissed with devoid of any merit.

Arguments were heard from both the parties counsel. After perusal of the records on the file order was reserved.

It was seen that complainant had alleged deficiency pertaining to mother board and camera which was not working, were stated to be rectified and PCB was replaced, though no evidence was on record to prove allegations of complainant for OP-1. Complainant has also not made authorized service centre as a necessary party, whereas complainant has been made against OP-1 manufacturer of the product and seller of the product as OP-2. As though there is no concrete evidence to show defective product was sold by OP-2. Hence, no liability can be fastened in such condition. So far as, liability of OP-1 (manufacturer) is only fastened in presence of concrete evidence from service centre as job sheet established problem/defects.

As the complainant has stated in his complaint that PCB was duly replaced and related problems were rectified by service centre. Though, no evidence is present on record. In such condition we cannot fasten any liability on the manufacturer of the product.

 

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and the same deserve to be dismissed so the complaint is dismissed without cost.

   

(Dr) P N Tiwari   Member                                                             Sukhdev Singh   President