Judgment : 31.7.2017
This is a complaint made by one Bhaskar De, son of Late Amulya Ratan De, residing at 43/4/1, Baishnab Ghata Road, Garia, Kolkata-700 047 against – (1) In Charge, Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Sector 27 Near S.S.R.Corporate Tower, Faridabad, Haryana, PIN-121 003, OP No.1 and (2) In charge, Phoenix International (RSPL-1907), B40, Raja S.C.Mallick Road, Opp. Bata Footwear/ LIC Building, beside KPC Medical College (Main gate), P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, praying for replacing penta tablet with key board together with 16GB memory card by a new one, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agonies, harassment, damages and humiliation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased one penta quad core tablet with key board on 29.10.2015 through home shop 18 vide invoice No.TARA/15-16/676839 dt.29.10.2015 at a consideration of Rs.2,999/-. But, the said tablet started giving problem and Complainant contacted the seller (OP No.1) upon which he was instructed by the OP No.1 to contact customer service centre i.e. OP No.2. The Complainant handed over the said tablet showing the bills to the OP No.2 on 27.7.2016 with the warranty period, but due to non-availability of stocks the said tablet was deposited with OP No.2. For 3 days against which a job sheet was issued by OP No.2. The Complainant states after waiting for a month followed up with OP No.2 where he was told by the OP No.2 to come several times till the stocks are available. Thus being harassed Complainant filed this case.
OP did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.1 & 2.
Decision with reasons
On perusal of the records, we find that the Complainant has filed one original unsigned computer generated invoice, No.TARA/15-16/676839 dt.29.10.2015. One original warranty card without any stamp and seal, one job sheet from Phoenix international (PSPL-1907) No.PENSER00172245 dt.27.7.2016 duly stamped and signed.
Complainant has filed petition for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for replacement of the tablet.
Since the allegations made against OP No.1 and OP No.2 remained un-rebutted and unchallenged we hold that this is a fit case where the order for replacement of tablet should be granted as because the tablet is within warranty period.
Further Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which appears to be inconsistent with the first prayer and also is too much excessive. Complainant has also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- which appears to be unwarranted. However, the OPs deserve to be directed to repair the tablet along with 16 GB memory card deposited by the Complainant, if OPs do not repair the replacement has to be ordered and in that case, some compensation and litigation cost consistence with the profile of this case inevitable.
As such, we are of the view that allegations made by the Complainant is true.
Hence ordered
CC/11/2017 is allowed ex-parte. OP No.2 is directed to repair the above said penta tablet along with key board and 16 GB memory card deposited by the Complainant within one month in full functioning condition, failing which OP No.1 is directed to replace the above said penta tablet to the Complainant with a new tablet in lieu of the defective tablet with same specifications and free of delivery cost within another one month from the date of this order, in default, OP No.1 is directed to refund the entire invoice value of Rs.2,999/- with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant from the date of this order, in default, the amount of Rs.6,999/- shall carry interest of 10% p.a. till the date of full realization.
