This is a complaint made by one Sanhita Dhar, daughter of Sri Bhaskar Jyoti Dhar of A/16/A Bapujinagar, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092 against (1) Lava International Ltd., A-56, Sector 64, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301, OP No.1, (2) R. G. Cellular Pvt. Ltd., South City Mall, 23/5 Gariahat Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.2, (3) Chandni Chowk Lava Service Centre, 3A, Madan Street, Opposite to LIC Building, P.S.-New Market, Kolkata-700 072, OP No.3  and (4) Lava Service Centre, Senco Gold Building, P-10 CIT Road, P.S.-Entally, Kolkata-700 009, OP No.4, praying for (a) replacing the defective Tab with new one or refund the cost of the tab with interest of 15% p.a. (b) compensation of Rs.5,000/- and (c) litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a student of final year B.Sc. Complainant paid Rs.6,700/- for purchasing a tab and also for Rs.300/- for a flip cover and OP issued two separate bills. After 3/4  days or purchase some problems developed with the tab and it started switched off automatically. Complainant without delay contacted OP No.2 from where she purchased the said set. OP No.2 advised her to go to Lava Service Centre because the tab was having some software problems.

            Thereafter, Complainant went to the nearby Lava Service Centre at Ekdalia, OP No.4 who kept the defective tab for three days. But, it could not be repaired. Again Complainant went to OP No.3 the main service centre where the tab was kept on the plea of repairing. But, it could not be repaired. Again Complainant went to OP No.3 and made attempt so that the tab could be repaired. But of no use. Thereafter, Complainant issued notice. But, OP did not pay any heed to the grievances of the Complainant and so she filed this complaint.

            OP No.2 filed written version and denied all the allegations. OP No.2 has stated that on 2.11.2015 Complainant came to the shop room and purchased a tab. Further, OP No.2 has stated that he does not have knowledge regarding any communication with the Complainant. OP No.2 has also stated that he received the notice. But he has nothing to do in this matter because he is mere a retailer and not a service centre. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Other OPs did not contest the complaint by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against other OPs.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where she has stated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OP No.2 has filed questionnaire against affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant has replied. OP No.2 has filed evidence to which Complainant has filed questionnaire.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

            On perusal of the documents, it appears that Complainant purchased the said tab after paying Rs.6,700/- on 2.11.2015. As per the allegation of the Complaint the tab after 3/4 days started automatically getting switched off and thereafter the complainant has stated that she visited almost all the OPs. But, she did not get any relief. Copy of the receipt reveals that the tab was purchased on 2.11.2015. This complaint has been filed on 18.5.2016 that means after a period of seven months this complaint was filed.

            There is no warranty card filed. However, it is clear that if a consumer purchased any tab after paying Rs.6,700/- the implied warranty remains for one year and no consumer is expected to pay Rs.6,700/- if he/she is in a position to use the mobile or tab and ultimately the liability goes to the OP to either repair or replace it.

            The affidavit filed reveals that OP shirked their liabilities and so Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that OP be directed to refund Rs.6,700/- to the Complainant after Complainant handovers the said tab to the OPs or deposit dues with the OP No.2 who sold it on behalf of other OPs.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- is awarded the justice would be served.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/217/2016 is considered and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to pay Rs.6,700/- with Rs.1,000/- compensation and Rs.500/- litigation cost to the Complainant within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest of 12% p.a. provided Complainant returns the tab.