Orissa

Cuttak

CC/135/2015

Ananta Kumar Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Smart Infoways Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.135/2015

 

Ananta Kumar Dey,

Res. of At:Mahatab Road(Glass & Glass Lane),

P.O:Buxibazar,Dist:Cuttack.                                                                   … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. Managing Director,

SMART INFOWAYS PVT. LTD.,

36,Bajaj House,97,Nehru Place,New Delhi-110019.

 

2. M/s. OA INFOTECH,

Behind Govt. Bus Stand,

At:Badambadi,PO:Arunodaya Market,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.

 

3. Managing Director,

HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD., E-4, 5 & 6,

Sector-11, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh,

India.                                                                                                  … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    04.12.2015

Date of Order:  26.08.2016

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for redressal of his grievances under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to defects in the goods purchased by him and deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief is that on 13.12.14 the complainant has booked a “HCL TBLET” of Model_Y4 TA00004-B CANNECT  3G 2 0 DOMESTIC from the O.P.1 through On- line purchase from “NAPTOL”  via Internet.  After a few days, the said tablet was delivered to him in his residence at Cuttack by the delivery boy for consideration of Rs.6,198/-.  The consideration amount was immediately paid vide retail invoice marked as Aannex-1 and copy of the warranty has been filed and marked as Annex-2.
2. While using the said tablet, on 2.3.2015 the complainant noticed some defects in the tablet and it suddenly ceased to function and the back side of the said tablet got hot.  Thereafter the complainant immediately approached O.P.3 the manufacturing company through E.Mail, the copy of the E.Mail message sent to O.P.3 on 5.3.15 is marked as Annex-3.  But unfortunately due to technical snag the E.Mail message could not be received for which the complainant again sent E.Mail on 7.3.15 and it reached the addressee on 11.3.2015.  O.P.3 intimated the complainant that his complaint has been registered vide I.D No.8400475282 and he was also instructed to visit the service centre, the O.P.2 for Redressal of his grievance.  Annexure-4 is the reply E.Mail given by O.P.3.
3. O.P.2 after receiving the tablet from the complainant returned the same to him on 25.5.15 after repair.  While using the same the complainant again noticed that the defect pointed out in the tablet was still existing.  Being disgusted with the service rendered by O.P.2, he again delivered the defective tablet to him on 26.5.15 for repair.  Annex-5 is the copy of the receipt of the said tablet given by O.P.2.  In this connection,  O.P.1 was also intimated through E.Mail by the complainant as per Annexure-6 and a new I.D Number was created bearing No.840075282 in favour of the complainant.
4. O.P.2 without undertaking the repair work of the defective tablet, kept it idle for about two months and during that period the complainant has approached O.P.2 for a number of times on different occasions but all his requests went in vain.  It put the complainant into serious mental agony and harassment.  It is also tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.  It is also stated that complainant was deprived of using the tablet for about two months and no repair work was undertaken by O.P.2 despite repeated requests made by the complainant and instructions given to him by the other two O.Ps, it is sufficient to hold that the said tablet was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which could not be repaired by O.P.2, the service centre.
5. The cause of action to file this case has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum and it is within the time limit.
6. The complainant has therefore prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6198/- to him towards cost of the defective tablet, to pay interest @ 12% per annum on that amount till the date of refund, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment caused to him by the O.Ps as well as to pay cost and to award any other reliefs to him as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
7. O.Ps1 & 2 have not entered appearance and are set exparte.  Only O.P.3 entered appearance and filed written version of his case.
8. It is interalia contended by O.P.3 that the complaint is not maintainable both in fact and law, there is no cause of action to file the complaint, no defect was noticed nor was any deficiency in service provided by the O.Ps to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The material assertions in the complaint have been denied/disputed as clearly revealed from the written version of the case.
9. It is specifically stated that the warranty period of the said tablet was 6 months instead of one year as alleged in the complaint and the complaint lodged by the complainant has been duly attended by the O.Ps to redress his grievances whenever it was brought to their notice.  The O.P.2 after repairing the tablet informed the complainant in time to take back the same but the latter deliberately refused to accept it.  It is further stated that the O.P.3 being a reputed company has got its own business good will in the market and under no circumstances the same would be allowed to be at stake.  It is also emphatically stated that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.3 and as such there is no question of replacement or compensation as prayed by the complainant.  It is accordingly prayed that the above complaint is devoid of merit and it needs to be dismissed.
10. The point for determination in this case is that whether there was any defect noticed in the goods purchased by the complainant from the O.Ps and whether there was any deficiency in service provided by the O.Ps to him and whether the reliefs sought for by the complainant are liable to be sustained and the O.Ps are liable to redress such grievances of the complainant in terms of his relief prayed for in the complaint petition.
11. We have heard the learned advocate for the complainant as well as the learned advocate for the O.P.3 at length and gone through the documents filed in this case.
12. During course of argument the learned advocate for the O.P.3 has insisted on replacement of the old tablet of the complainant whereas the learned advocate for the complainant prays for refund of the cost of the defective tablet together with other reliefs as prayed for.  He has also fairly submitted in the open court that if the replacement of the old tablet is made, the complainant has no objection provided other reliefs prayed for may be taken into consideration in their merit prospective.

ORDER

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents available in the case record and having heard the arguments from both the sides, the prayer of the complainant is partly allowed on contest against the O.P.3 and exparte against O.Ps 1 & 2.  Instead of refund of the cost of the old tablet by the O.Ps, the set be replaced by a new and defect free one within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.  They are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to him as well as Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.  The above order shall be complied with by the O.Ps within the said period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The prayer for interest @ 12% per annum on the cost of the tablet as prayed by the complainant is not sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is not allowed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 26^th day of August, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                                         President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                                 Member.

 

                                                                                                                                               

 

                                                                                                                                     (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                                             Member(W)