Delhi

North East

CC/216/2014

Ajay Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL - Opp.Party(s)

24 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 216/14

 

CORUM:-      Hon’ble President N.K.Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Nishat Ahmad Alvi

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Ajay Chaudhary R/o A-44, Street No. 1 North Ghonda, Delhi-53.	Complainant
	Versus
	HCL 806, Siddarth Building Nehru Place Market Road New Delhi-19	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	05.06.2014
	DATE OF DECISION       :	24.09.2016

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi- Member

 

ORDER

 

1. The facts of present complaint, in brief, are that complainant had purchased a HCL Tablet on 3.12.2013 from Wizard Digitek Computer Pvt. Ltd, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-93- the shopkeeper, for Rs. 8,200/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred) vide receipt No. 07910274239 with one year warranty. The said tablet got defective within a month. Complainant complained to shopkeeper Wizard Digitek Computer Pvt Ltd who sent him to service centre. On 24.03.2014 complainant deposited his tablet for repairing (vide Complaint No. 317) at OP’s service centre which was returned to him on 23.4.2014, stating that the same has been rectified but the tablet was still not working properly. Again on 26.4.2014 complainant deposited his tablet at OP’s service centre (vide Complaint No.529) and it was returned to him after repairing, he found that his tablet was still not working. He again made his complaint then he was suggested by the service centre that “Charge at home it will start working”. Complainant charged his tablet at home but the condition of the tablet was same (still not working). Again he made his complaint requesting to replace the tablet but the employees of service centre refused to replace the same. Rather they misbehaved with him. Pleading deficiency of service on the part of employees of OP complainant has prayed to either replace his tablet with new one or return Rs. 8,200/- the amount paid for the said tablet alongwith Rs. 5000/- as compensation against mental and physical harassment and to punish the company for its irresponsible act.   
2. OP in their written statement stated that the problem in complainant’s tablet has arisen due to following reasons:

1. Pirated softwares used by the complainant
2. Continuous change in the settings of tablet due to mishandling of the same.
3. Electricity earthing problem in the house of the complainant.  

 

3. OP further submitted that the defect in the tablet has been caused due to negligence on the part of complainant himself who mis-handled the tablet and created a problem. According to OP the present complaint is not maintainable because complainant fails to adduce basic evidence to show the manufacturing defect in the tablet as the same is functioning properly and also fails to prove any deficiency in service on their part. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant in replication to WS of OP rebutted all the allegations of OP and stated that:

1. When he purchased the tablet the software has already been installed by the OP so he do not need any pirated software.
2. If by mistake any setting changed by him then the programme will not work but his set is dead.
3. Company has given him only two pin charger which works on negative and positive amount only hence no matter of electricity earthing problem in house.

 

5. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits of evidence with documents.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7.  On perusal of record we find that defect in the tablet arose in the first month itself of its purchase i.e. within warranty period. Which is also admitted as OP’s service centre got the tablet deposited. Again taking the tablet for repairs by service centre also establishes that the same was not rectified. As Jobsheet dated 26.4.2014 also mentions “Touch not working, Battery Backup Low”. The tablet of the complainant is still lying dead.
8. Thus the defect in the tablet was of such a nature that it was not able to be rectified. In that case as per Settled Law, it shall be deemed to be a manufacturing defect.
9. In this manner complainant has proved his case while OP failed to establish its defences of use of pirated software, continuous change of setting in tablet by mishandling and earthing problems as after the defect in the tablet it remains with the OP’s service centre and still lying there dead.
10.   Therefore holding that the tablet has a manufacturing  defect and OP is guilty of deficiency in service we direct OP:-

1. To, replace the said tablet with brand new  sealed pack tablet with fresh warranty, failing which refund cost of the tablet paid being Rs. 8,200/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Two Hundred).
2. To pay to the complainant Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment; and
3. To pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation.

 

11. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt thereof.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

13. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Announced on  24.09.2016)    

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member