BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.228 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.05.2015

Date of Decision :05.10.2015

Amit Gauba aged about 32 years son of Late Sh.Surinder Pal Gauba R/o 26, Fiends Colony, Opp.DAV College, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. HCL Infosystems Ltd, 806, Siddharth Building, 96-Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Manager Director, 2nd Address:- HLC Infosystems Ltd, D-233, Sector 63, Noida, through its Managing Director.

2. Mobile House, EK-231/1, Old Div.No.3 Market, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/Partner/ M.D./Prop.

3. Logic Computers, over SBI ATM, Near Bank of India, Jaswant Nagar, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/Partner/MD/ Prop.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Akhil Chopra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased HCL Tablet PC having S/N 0613PCC2G2DIT3226 on 23.11.2013 vide invoice No.11176 from opposite party No.2. The said tablet was purchased by complainant on the words of assurance regarding the product given by the opposite party No.2 and believing on the advertisement regarding the good functioning of the product by opposite party No.1. Within a week of date of purchase, the above said tablet started giving problem regarding its touch screen. Complainant deposited his tablet to opposite party No.3 on 7.12.2013 for its service as the same was within the period of warranty. Opposite party No.3 i.e the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 admitted the claim of complainant and considered the case as DOA case and assured complainant that his tablet will be replaced by a new one. After about a period of one month from the date of depositing the set to the service centre, when complainant did not receive the new tablet, nor received any communication regarding the time of delivery of the replaced tablet, then complainant sent an online complaint/email to HCL on 2.1.2014. The said complaint was replied by the HCL company vide email dated 16.1.2014 whereby they demanded few more days to take-up complaint/matter of the complainant. Consequently, in the month of February 2014, complainant received a new tablet having S/n 0513PCC2G2DIT20361. The new tablet received by complainant developed some working problem and the complainant deposited the replaced tablet to opposite party No.3. After checking the tablet it was informed to complainant that the motherboard of the tablet is not working properly and needs to be changed. On 17.5.2014 complainant made a complaint regarding the tablet to HCL vide email which was replied by the company on 19.5.2014 demanding some details regarding complainant and the same was provided by complainant vide email dated 20.5.2014. After that, complainant made numerous request and personal visit to opposite party No.3 for speedy repair of the tablet so that complainant could enjoy the product. Finally after 15-20 days complainant received the repaired tablet. Again in the month of June 2014, the tablet again started giving the working problem alongwith display and the problem of touch screen. Complainant then again submitted the tablet to opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 11.6.2014 having complaint number/call ID 8400421660. Since complainant got fed up with the product/tablet, as from the very time of its purchase and even after the replacement with the new tablet, there occured consistent and numerous problem regarding the tablet time and again and being dissatisfied from the product and the services given by the opposite parties, complainant sent a detailed complaint/email to HCL on 19.6.2014 regarding the non-functioning of the tablet and its defects and demanding the refund of his money as the products of opposite parties are of sub-standard nature. Responding to the said email, complainant received an email dated 24.6.2014 from HCL company through its official Mr.Geetesh, showing their unwillingness to refund the money and informing the complainant that complainant shall get the repaired tablet soon. But inspite of the above said reply, neither the complainant got his money back nor got the repaired tablet. Complainant then made numerous requests both telephonically and by personal visits, to the opposite party No.1 company and to opposite party No.3 service centre but nothing fruitful came out. Feeling cheated and deceived by the opposite parties, complainant on 8.7.2014 sent a email to the HCL attaching there with the scanned copy of the job sheet and demanding the refund of his money. The said mail was replied by the company official Mr.Geetesh vide email dated 9.7.2014, requesting the complainant to collect the tablet from the service centre, as the same has been repaired again. Complainant then left with no option, went to the opposite party No.3 for collecting the tablet. But at the time of collecting of the repaired tablet with opposite party No.3, when complainant switch on the tablet, to the utter surprise and shock to complainant, the problem of the tablet remains the same and the tablet was not repaired and the problem was not sorted out by the opposite parties. There and then, the complainant again deposited the tablet with the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 gave the same/earlier job sheet with new endorsement having complaint/call ID 8400437253 dated 12.7.2014. The office of opposite party No.3 is at the distance of about 12-13 Kms from the residence of complainant and complainant had to visit the office/service centre of opposite parties No.3 numerous times and that too only because of the reason that the product of the opposite parties is of sub-standard nature, as there occured problems in the product time and again. Moreover, consistent and repeated problems had occurred in the tablet which clearly shows that there is manufacturing defect in the product and the product/tablet of HCL is basically technically defective. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him the price of the tablet alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the tablet was replaced by the opposite party twice with new one and its PCB and touch was replaced thrice by the opposite party and moreover at present the tablet is working properly and is lying with opposite party No.3 i.e with the service centre but the complainant is not ready to receive the same. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. The tablet of the complainant was replaced with new one after the completion of necessary formalities. The tablet of the complainant was duly repaired as per the satisfaction of the customer and was provided best service by the opposite party No.3. The complaint of the complainant was fully resolved as per his satisfaction as and when he made complaint about the tablet to the service centre. As and when complainant reported about any complaint about the tablet the same was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant but even then the complainant insisted for refund of the price of the tablet which can not be possible as the tablet of the complainant was replaced with new one hence it is not possible to refund the price of the tablet. There is no technical defect in the tablet and it is defect free tablet and is lying in the office of opposite party No.3 but the complainant is not ready to receive the same. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavits Ex.OPA & Ex.OPB and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 3.

6. The complainant purchased one Tablet mark HCL vide retail invoice 23.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.8000/- from opposite party No.2. According to the complainant, the said tablet developed defect within week and he deposited his tablet with opposite party No.3 on 7.12.2013 i.e its service centre and it was replaced with new one. So admittedly on the first occasion, the tablet was replaced with new one. According to the complainant, replaced tablet again developed defect and opposite party No.3 i.e service centre informed him that its motherboard is not working properly and needs to be changed. According to the own version of the complainant, he received the tablet after about 15-20 days in repaired condition. Counsel for the complainant contended that the tablet again started giving problems regarding display and touch screen in June 2014 and it was submitted with opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 11.6.2014 Ex.C7. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant sent various emails to the company and finally went to opposite party No.3 to receive the tablet in repaired condition but it was found that the problem has not been rectified and as such the tablet was again deposited with opposite party No.3 vide same job sheet whereon fresh endorsement regarding "New Complaint Generated" was made. The above said job sheet is Ex.C7. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 contended that the tablet is lying in repaired condition with opposite party No.3 but complainant is not coming to collect the same and insisting on refund of the price of the tablet which is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. The tablet purchased by the complainant was replaced with new one and this fact is not disputed. The replaced tablet again developed defects and it was deposited with opposite party No.3 i.e service centre of opposite party No.1 company vide job sheet dated 11.6.2014 Ex.C7 but when on 12.7.2014 he went to collect the repaired tablet, it was found that the problem has not been sorted out and as such the tablet was again deposited with opposite party No.3 with same job sheet dated 11.6.2014 Ex.C7 with fresh endorsement i.e "New Complaint Generated". In the job sheet Ex.C7 in the column of engineer remarks "New Complaint Generated" is mentioned. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 contended that the tablet is lying in repaired condition with opposite party No.3 but complainant is not coming forwarded to collect the same and insisting on refund of the price which is not possible. Replaced tablet was deposited with opposite party No.3 on 11.6.2014 i.e within warranty period. When complainant went after about a month i.e 12.7.2014 to receive the repaired tablet it was again found defective and was again deposited with opposite party No.3 vide same job sheet but with fresh endorsement i.e "New Complaint Generated". So from the above narrated facts it is clear that the original tablet purchased by the complainant was not working properly and it was replaced with new one but even replaced tablet again developed defect within short period and was again deposited with opposite party No.3 on 11.6.2014 but when complainant went to collect the same, it was found to be having new problem. One purchases an article to use it and enjoy it and not to repeatedly visit the service centre making complaint regarding its working. Since the date of purchase i.e 23.11.2013 the complainant has repeatedly visited the service centre and sent emails to the company regarding defect in the product. Complainant had gone to the service centre on 12.7.2014 to receive the repaired tablet but it was again found defective there and then. So in the above circumstances, we feel that complainant is entitled to replacement of the tablet with new one as the opposite parties No.1 & 3 have failed to rectify the defect in the tablet within reasonable time.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the tablet in question with brand new one of the same make and model and in case the same model is not available then to refund its price to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

05.10.2015 Member Member President