ORDER

26.11.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant purchased a HP Slate 7 Voice Tab product serial no.35894056163005 at the shop of respondent no.2 and paid Rs.13,698.24 including taxes on 07.11.2024. It is stated that at the time of purchase respondent no.2 assured that the HP India is best quality product and it is a reputed company and its product is world class.
2. It is stated that after sometime the said Tab/Slate 7 started trouble, system working slow, not charging battery and its software crashed if not updated. It is further stated that in the month of May 2015, the complainant approached the respondents for the said problems then officials advised to contact service center at JABIL Center C 4 Second Floor, Ring Road, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is stated that complainant contacted the service center on 06.05.2015. It is further stated that the Tab was not repaired properly and again complainant visited service center on 19.05.2015, 30.05.2015, 05.06.2015 and 27.07.2015 for the same problem but unfortunately problem was not solved and finally complainant had sent email through Gmail to respondent no.1 several times and respondent even not bother to repair or replace or refund the said Slate7/Tab.
3. It is stated that on 21.07.2015 the respondent no.1 admitted the negligence and beg apology and also promised best solution. It is stated that on 23.07.2015 respondent no.1 admitted ULR as defined by respondent that the complete Slate will be replaced but finally refused to replace or refund the paid amount. It is stated that complainant suffering from mental pain and agony due to the negligent act and deficiency in service of respondents.
4. The complainant is seeking the direction against OP to replace the defected HP Slate 7 or return Rs.13,698.24, to pay Rs.30,000/- as visiting charges expended by complainant and business loss and to pay compensation of Rs.55,000/- for sufferance for mental pain and agony and also paid  litigation charges.
5. OP1 filed detailed WS and mentioned preliminary submissions that there is no substance in the complaint and all the averments are totally baseless and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP1. It is stated that voice Tab is a sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same are depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of system and the software installed.
6. It is stated that any mishandling of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system. It is further stated that if the product is under warranty and the reported problem is covered under the warranty policy, the OP1 is bound to repair or replace the defective parts free of cost subject to availability. It is stated that the reported problem is not covered under the warranty, the customer is bound to pay the necessary repair/replacement charges. It is stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the voice tab purchased by complainant.
7. It is stated that complainant purchased the voice tab on 07.11.2014 and used it for more than six months which itself indicated that there is no manufacturing defect in the product. It is further stated that in case of any manufacturing defect, the product would have been stopped working from the day of its purchase itself. It is stated that complainant has suppressed material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. It is stated that complainant reported battery issue and slow performance issue which was tried to resolve as warranty obligation.
8. It is stated that the service center informed the complainant that one part was required to be replaced and since the said part was not readily available the service center informed the complainant that same will be fixed immediately after its availability. It is further stated that by that time the complainant demanded refund of the amount but since as per warranty obligation the unit was covered under repair warranty and refund was not possible. It is stated that OP1 offered replacement of the product for which the complainant was not amenable.
9. It is stated that when the issue was escalated to customer relation team of OP1 the company offered refund option and asked the complainant to provide invoice copy but complainant did not respond. It is stated that complainant was offered to refund the amount by excluding the taxes but complainant was no amenable and demanded entire invoice amount. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP1 and there is no breach of terms, therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary submissions are reiterated. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
11. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
12. As per record OP2 was served but failed to appear therefore proceeded ex parte as per order dated 18.12.2019.
13. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit. In the affidavit contents of complaint are reiterated.
14. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Nirmala Veena Raghava AR. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
15. Complainant as well as OP1 filed written arguments.
16. We have heard complainant in person and Sh.Vikas proxy counsel for Sh. Aman Garg counsel for OP and perused the record.
17. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased HP Slate 7 Voice Tab for Rs.13,698/- on 07.11.2014 manufactured by OP1 HP India. The complainant alleged that after some time the Tab/Slate7 started trouble such as system working slow, not charging battery and its software crashed for being not updated. The complainant made complaint and also visited service center on 19.05.2015, 30.05.2015, 05.06.2015 and 27.07.2015.The OP1 and 2 failed to rectify the problem. The complainant filed on record all the emails with regard to complaints in working of Tab/Slate7. OP1 denied all the allegations, however admitted that the complainant had purchased Tab/Slate7 manufactured by OP1. It is admitted by OP1 that an offer was made to complainant to replace the product and customer relation team also offered refund option but complainant did not respond. It is admitted by OP1 that the refund offer was excluding the taxes to which the complainant did not agree.
18. As per material on record it is established that the complainant purchased the Tab/Slate7 manufactured by OP1 which developed some problems in working. The complainant made several visits for repair and rectification but OP1 failed to rectify. The OP1 admitted refund of the invoice price. The complainant established that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP1, therefore, we direct OP1 to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to complainant. In case of default further direct to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realization. File be consigned to record room.
19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  26.11.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                             RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                     MEMBER