BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.457 of 2017 Date of Instt.01.12.2017 Date of Decision: 09.03.2021

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Dhiraj R/o H. No.1/4, Santoshi Nagar, Near Kazi Mandi, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. M/s AKEDU Technologies Pvt. Ltd.-Hyderabad LTO, OPP. GMR Old site Office, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamsabad, Hyderabad-500409 Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.

2. M/s Mahendru Telecom, Office No.2, 2^nd Floor Monika Tower, Near Milap Chowk, Jalandhar Punjab Through its Proprietor/Partners/Manager.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MRS.JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For Complainant : Sh. Atul Malhotra, Advocate

For OP No.1 : exparte.

For OP No.2 : Sh. Anuj Mehta, Advocate

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complainthasbeen filed by complainant-Ashok Kumaragainst the OPs on the averments thatthe OPs are engaged in selling of various items and goods through internet/websites to the general public for consideration throughout India particularly at Jalandhar. That on the allurements, assurances and promises of OPs that OPs have a name in the market for selling quality goods and that goods sold by OP are made of high quality material and craftsmanship and are guaranteed against any defect, complainant ordered a new Tabloid/Tablet for personal use after seeing the said item on website of OPs. That OPs delivered the said Tabloid/Tablet to complainant at Jalandhar alongwith sale bill dated 08.03.2017 through courier and complainant made entire payment of Rs.3300/- in cash at Jalandhar. The said product was required by complainant for personal use for internet. Further OPs had assured complainant that complainant shall be provided with one year Free Internet Browsing on Reliance GSM alongwith the said tabloid/tablet. That after the receipt of the said tabloid/tablet, complainant noted that the said tabloid/tablet was not working properly. Further, there was mentioned that the said product was warranted for 12 months from the date of purchase but no bill or phone number or communications address of manufacturer were mentioned on the manual sent by OPs alongwith the said product. That after noting the above said shortcoming and defects in the said tabloid/tablet, complainant immediately approached OPs through emails and requested for refund of the amount and return of the said product as per the policy of OPs. On receiving the complaint from complainant, OP No.1 belatedly directed complainant to approach OP No.2 at Jalandhar for repairing the defects. That complainant on 10.06.2017 approached OP No.2 and handed over the said tabloid/tablet to OP No.2 at Jalandhar for checking and repairing. But OPNo.2 failed to set right the said tabloid/tablet till date. The said tabloid/tablet is still in possession of OPNo.2 from 10.06.2017 and has not been delivered to complainant after removing defects. That till date OPs have failed to either refund the amount to complainant or to change the product with a new one. That thereafter complainant requested OPs many times for refunding the amount and for compensation for mental tension, harassment, but OPs have failed to refund or change the product till present date and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3300/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 08.03.2017 till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the OP No.2 is not having any direct dealing with the complainant. In fact the complainant purchased the Tablet from OP No.1 through Online and also paid the amount to the OP No.2. As per the Job Sheet of the said mobile, the main service provider of OPNo.1 is M/s Medox Technologies Pvt. Ltd. situated at E-23-A, First Floor, Sector 8, Noida but the said companyhas not been made a party by the complainant in the present complaint. The above said Medox Technologies Pvt. Ltd. only obtained the services of the OP No.2, Mahendru Telecom for the collection of any defective Tablet of the company of OP No.1. The OP No.2, Mahendru Telecom only collected the Tablet of the complainant and thereafter immediately sent to M/s Medox Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for its repair through courier-Blue Darts. The OP No.2 is not at fault from any cornet and he always provided his best services to its customers. It is further alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. That the present complaint has been filed against the OP no.2 only to harass and to extract money from him. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are denied by the OPs and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of ArpanMahendru as Ex.OP2/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 and then closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand have also gone through the record very carefully.

6. Copy of the bill of purchase of Tablet from Op No.1 has been produced on the record, which fully establishes claim of complainant qua such purchase, being made by him on 03.08.2017. On Ex.C-3itself warranty period of one year from date of purchase is mentioned with further observation that said warranty will be available from the company. Complainant approached Op No.2 for repair of this tablet on 10.06.2015 and the said service center recorded noting on job order Ex.C-5 to the effect that set device dead. But till the Ops have failed to repair the tab in dispute. Thus, virtually statement of complainant suffered through affidavit through Ex.CA is fully believable that he due to defect of not working of the tab and had approached to Op No.2 time and again for removal of the trouble in the tablet. Despite that the trouble in the set is persisting. After a long gap the tablet is not handed over to the complainant after its repair. In view of this, it is obvious that defective tablet was non-operational. Therefore, statement of complainant through affidavit fully believable that due to inherent defect in the tablet, the same is not working. This complaint has been filed for replacement of the tablet within warranty period, which is to lapse on 02.08.2017. No one from external appearance will be able to detect the inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement of tablet. However, replacement of tablet too place in this case within span of three months of purchase of the tablet by complainant.

7. In case titled as Hind Motor (I) Ltd &Anr. Tata Motors VsLakhbir Singh & another 1(2014) CPJ 120 (NC), it has been laid that in case inherent defect in vehicle requiring major repairs after short span of eight months, found, then the vehicle should to be replaced, due to deficiency in services. Same is the position in this case. So by applying the analogy of law laid down in the above said case, this complaint deserves to be allowed.

8. Consequently, this complaint is allowed with directions to OPs No.1 to deliver a new defect free tablet to complainant without charging any cost from him. In the alternative OP No.1 through OP No.2 directed to return amount of Rs.3300/- to complainant with interest @ 5% per annum from 08.03.2017 till date of payment. Amount of Rs.2000/- allowed on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses in favour of complainant and against OPs No.1&2.

9. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

10. File be indexed and consigned to the record room its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

9^th Day of March 2021

(Kuljit Singh)

President

(Jyotsna)

Member