Case No.CC/334/16

            Date of Institution:-    28.07.2016

Order Reserved on:- 05.07.2024

Date of Order:-  31.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Vinay Kumar Parihar Advocate

S/o Sh. Sheesh Pal Singh

R/o A-56, Flat No.2,

Ground Floor, SLF VedVihar,

Loni Ghaziabad

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s I Ball Mobiles (through Managing Director)

C 44/2, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi – 110020

2. Advanced Laptop Shoppe Pvt. Ltd.

G-4, G-5, Goverdhan House, 53-54,

Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019

..…Opposite Parties

O R D E R

PerDR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased a tablet set on 15.07.2015 manufactured by OP-1 from OP-2 along with accessories. He paid Rs.9,500/- to OP-2, who issued Invoice Number 2477 dated 15.07.2015 towards this purchase. Annexure-C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued to the complainant annexed with the complaint.
2. While using the tablet, the complainant noticed that one of the earphones on the left side was not working, and the phone connectivity with the tablet was also not smooth, and needed repeated adjustment. He alsofound that the applications he was using on the tabletwould break in the middle of usage like music player, games, video player, net access and phonewould hang or switch off automatically after a few hours of usage.

3. On 12.12.2015 and on 22.01.2016 (erroneously written as 22.01.2013 in the complaint), the complainant took his tablet to OP-2, the seller,to get the defects of the tablet repaired but OP-2 directed the complainant to approach OP-1 to get his product repaired. The complainant called OP-1 customer care several times to enumerate his grievance but to no avail.

4. He, therefore, approached the authorised service centre of OP-1 in Bhajan Pura on 03.03.2016 and detailed his grievances with the tablet,asking the authorised service centre to replace the tablet as it had a manufacturing defect. The service centreissued a customer receipt dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure-C-2). After a week, the service centre returned the tablet,assuring the complainant that the tablet was now fully repaired.

5. However, the complainant alleges that when he used the tablet, he found the sameproblems as when he had submitted it to the service centre.The complainant's tablet finally shut down, and he again approached the service centre but was turned away without resolving his grievance with the defective tablet.

6. The complainant states that he used the tablet in the condition that he received it from the service centre for 6 months till 15.03.2016 when the complainant switched on the machine and found that it had crashed, and he had lost all his contact numbers, messages, photographs, video recordings, note pad data, calendar data etc. After this, the tablet finally shutdown permanently.

7. The complainant served a letter towards selling defective products on 04.05.2016 to OP-1, a copy of which he has filed as Annexure-C-3. When the OPs took no action to address the issues with his tablet and having lost faith in OP-1 and 2, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He has prayed for directions to the OPs to pay the complainantthe amount of the product, i.e. Rs.9500/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase ofthe product, Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.40,000/- towards loss and profession along with the cost of litigation.

8. Notice was issued to the OPs to file their reply. OP-1 filed the reply stating therein that the present complaint should be dismissed outrightly as the complainant,after purchasing the producton  15.07.2015, visited the authorised service centre in Bhajan Pura only once per their record on 03.03.2016. The complainant approached the authorised service centreof OP-1 for the problem of "auto app crash and hanging problem".
9. The service centrerectified all the defects and returned the tablet to the complainant on 09.03.2016. The complainant checked the tablet before receiving the same and acknowledged the customer issue slip after he was fully satisfied. Thereafter, the complainant has never visited the service centre of OP-1.

10. OP-1 further submits in his reply that the warranty period of the complainant's tablet has expired on 14.07.2016. However, they are ready to provide service and rectify any defects that require repair in the tablet as per policy,for which the complainant can visit the service centre.

11. OP-2 did not appear before this Commission and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2016 when the complainant filed adequate proof of service qua OP-2.

12. The complainant filed the rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, reiterating what he had stated in his complaint.OP-1 filed the affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, AR of OP-1,who also echoed the averments made in the reply and filed his written arguments.

13. The complainant did not file his written arguments and also did not appear to address arguments despite several opportunities. Neither did OP-1 and 2 appear to address oral arguments. Hence, due to the long pendency of the present case, we thought it prudent to reserve the case for orders based on the material on record.

14. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and perused the documents filed by the contesting parties to substantiate their respective testimonies.

15. We find that the complainant purchased a tablet on 15.07.2015 manufactured by OP-1 I-Ball Tab Cuddle A4, dual SIM with accessories from OP-2. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.9,500/- and was issued an invoice by OP-2 towards this purchase (page no.6 of the complaint).

16. The complainant has alleged that he was facing several problems with his tablet from the first day of usage, wherein the headphones accompanying the tabletwere not working,and his applications were also not smooth. The complainant has placed on page no.7 the copy of the job card issued by the service centre of Op-1 Gurukul Technology for Mobile Bhajan Pura, dated  03.03.2016, i.e. after approx. 7 months, where the complainant took his tablet for repair for the defect of auto app crash and hanging problem.

17. The complainant alleges that he found identical problems even after the repair was done by the service centre of OP-1, who has not been added as a party. He continued to use the tablet for approximately 1 week in the same condition, as stated by him in his complaint, until 15.03.2016, when his tablet crashed, erasing all his important contacts and personal information before permanently shutting down.

18. OP-1 contested the complaint,filing their reply and stating therein that the tablet purchased on 15.07.2015 carried a warranty of one year till 14.07.2016, as admitted by OP-1 in their reply. Further, the complainant submitted his tablet to the authorised service centre at Bhajan Pura on 03.03.2016, after which his problems with the tablet were rectified, and the tablet was handed back on 09.03.2016. Since then, the complainant has not contacted OP-1 about any issues with his tablet. OP-2 is exparte.

19. A bare perusal of the job sheet issued towards the repair of his tablet, annexed in the complaint at pg no. 7, mentions that he took his device for repair of auto app crash and hanging problem on 08.03.2016. He received his repaired device back on 09.03.2016. Despite repair, the complainant's tablet crashed and shut down on 15.03.2016, i.e. within a week of repair, erasing all his essential personal documents and files, after which he sent a letter dated 04.05.2016 to OP-1 to replace his defective tablet.

20. OP-1 is silent on the steps they took to resolve the complainant's grievance, which he had detailed in his letter dated 04.05.2016 regarding the shutdown of his device, which they could have easily done and filed the documentary evidence on record. Neither have OP-1 filed any document to clarify what work was done on the complainant's tablet to repair the issues he faced, as despite submitting his tablet to the authorised service centre of OP-1, the complainant was unable to get it rectified to his satisfaction, and the same problems occurred in his device before it crashed erasing his documents and personal pictures etc. which would undoubtedly have caused him mental agony and harassment. The lackadaisical attitude of OP-1 is tantamount to deficient service in our view. 

21. So far as OP-2, the seller, we feel that since the complainant used the tablet for seven months before facing issues with the device, OP-2 cannot be held liable in this case. Moreover, OP-2 guided the complainant correctly, asking him to take his device to the OP-1 service centre when he took his defective device to them. Hence, OP-2 was not deficient in their service in any way, and therefore, we absolve OP-2 from any liability fixed in the instant complaint.

22. In light of the discussion above, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 alone to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant, including litigation costs.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to the Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2024.