Order No. 17 dt. 25/10/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Tablet PC from o.p. no.5 by paying the value of Rs.8140/-. From the very first day of the purchase of the said product the complainant started to face various problems and he found that there was problem with regard to the charging of battery. Even if the battery had showed to have charged 100% the Tablet PC could not be used beyond an hour. The complainant, thereafter, went to o.p. no.5 who asked the complainant visit the office of o.p. no.3 and he disclosed his defect faced in respect of the said product. The o.p. no.3 received the said instrument and thereafter assured that the same would be replaced by a suitable one as the same was within the warranty period. Thereafter, the complainant was informed by o.p. no.3 that if he pays Rs.5480/- the said instrument would functioning properly and accordingly, he paid the amount. In spite of payment of the said amount the complainant could not get the fruitful result. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the price of the said Tablet PC as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v the o.p. nos.1 to 3 stated that from the records of service centre it is revealed that the said tab of the complainant was duly repaired and at present lying with o.p. no.3 since long. The o.p. no.3 time an again requested the complainant to collect the duly repaired tab, but did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. no.3 and also failed to visit the office of o.p. no.3 till date. Therefore, o.p. no.3 categorically stated that necessary direction be given to the complainant to receive the repaired tab from o.p. no.3. It was further stated that the warranty of the said tab expired long back on 2.3.16 since the complainant purchased the said tab on 3.3.15. It was further stated that as per verification clause the date is mentioned on 23.12.16 which established that the present complaint filed by the complainant after 9 months from the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant has filed this case only to have the financial benefit from o.ps. without having any cogent reason whatsoever, for which o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
In their w/v the o.p. nos.4 and 5 stated that they only sold the said tab and only whenever the complainant came to their shop they asked the complainant to make contact with o.p. nos.1 to 3. It was further stated that after purchase of the electronic goods any problem arises in respect of the model of iBall, o.p. nos.4 and 5 are not at all responsible and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the Tablet PC manufactured by o.p. no.1?
- Whether during the warranty period there was any defect?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one Tablet PC from o.p. no.5 by paying the value of Rs.8140/-. From the very first day of the purchase of the said product the complainant started to face various problems and he found that there was problem with regard to the charging of battery. Even if the battery had showed to have charged 100% the Tablet PC could not be used beyond an hour. The complainant, thereafter, went to o.p. no.5 who asked the complainant visit the office of o.p. no.3 and he disclosed his defect faced in respect of the said product. The o.p. no.3 received the said instrument and thereafter assured that the same would be replaced by a suitable one as the same was within the warranty period. Thereafter, the complainant was informed by o.p. no.3 that if he pays Rs.5480/- the said instrument would functioning properly and accordingly, he paid the amount. In spite of payment of the said amount the complainant could not get the fruitful result. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the price of the said Tablet PC as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 to 3 argued that from the records of service centre it is revealed that the said tab of the complainant was duly repaired and at present lying with o.p. no.3 since long. The o.p. no.3 time an again requested the complainant to collect the duly repaired tab, but did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. no.3 and also failed to visit the office of o.p. no.3 till date. Therefore, o.p. no.3 categorically stated that necessary direction be given to the complainant to receive the repaired tab from o.p. no.3. It was further stated that the warranty of the said tab expired long back on 2.3.16 since the complainant purchased the said tab on 3.3.15. It was further stated that as per verification clause the date is mentioned on 23.12.16 which established that the present complaint filed by the complainant after 9 months expiry of the warranty period. The complainant has filed this case only to have the financial benefit from o.ps. without having any cogent reason whatsoever, for which o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.4 and 5 argued that they only sold the said tab and only whenever the complainant came to their shop they asked the complainant to make contact with o.p. nos.1 to 3. It was further stated that after purchase of the electronic goods any problem arises in respect of the model of iBall, o.p. nos.4 and 5 are not at all responsible and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the Tablet PC from o.p. no.5 and it has been alleged that since the date of purchase the complainant found that the said tab was not working properly and as such, he went to service centre and handed over the same. From the materials on record it is found that the said tab was purchased on 3.3.15 and he reported the matter regarding the defect of the said tab on 14.4.15 and after removing the defect it was handed over the complainant. Subsequently the complainant again went to service centre on 12.11.16 and the defect was removed at the service centre and the same was handed over to the complainant. The complainant again reported the matter at the service centre on 15.11.16 and highlighted the defects which were removed and the tab was not received by the complainant for the purpose of filing of this case, so that he can claim compensation against the o.ps. It is curious enough that the tab was purchased on 3.3.15 and after the lapse of the warranty period the complainant visited the service centre and whenever the service centre asked for the charge the complainant by making a false allegation against the o.ps. that they failed to provide the service to the complainant and he was provided with a tab having manufacturing defect. in order to ascertain the manufacturing defect the complainant did not raise any objection during the warranty period and after lapse of the warranty period he raised such plea and in order to fortify his claim he made false allegation against the o.ps. It is found from the materials on record that the complainant has left the service centre keeping the said tab at the service centre, though the service centre repaired the same, but the complainant did not cooperate with o.p. no.3. In view of such background of the case we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. particularly when the complainant was provided the service by the service centre during the warranty period without asking for any money from the complainant. The complainant for the purpose of filing this case has manufactured false story against the o.ps. by stating inter alia that the tab in question had manufacturing defect at the time of purchase. If that be the so, how the complainant used the said tab during the warranty period save and except some minor defects which were rectified by service centre and the complainant being satisfied with the service of the service centre accepted the said tab and did not raise any objection after getting service from the service centre initially. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got merit as o.ps. have not committed any deficiency in service on their part and as such, the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.532/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
