DATE OF FILING                    :     10/07/2014

DATE OF S/R                            :      14/08/2014

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28/11/2014

AJIT JHA

S/O Sri Bidyanand Jha,

108/F, Bawangachi Railway Quarter P.S. Liluah,

District – Howrah – 711 106………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

  1. M/S KHOSLA ELECTRONICS LTD.

         Managin Director or (M anager)

         21/1, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Road,

         (Dobson Road) Opp. Howrah AC Market,

         P.S. Golabari

         Howrah – 711 101……………………….…………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. 1. Complainant, Ajit Jha,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund the purchase price of tab being Rs.8200/- or replace the tab in question, to pay Rs50,000/- as compensation with litigation costand other orders as theForum may deem fit and proper.
   
   2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one Tab from O.P. on 04.04.2014 on payment of Rs. 8200 for which O.P. issued bill of Invoice No. 2724/1415/00062 dt. 04.04.2014. But immediately after Five days, complainant found scratch marks on the screen of the Tab which was informed to O.P. with a request to replace the same or to refund the purchase price. But O.P. directly told that they have nothing to do in this respect even they did not want to tell him the address of service centre of the manufacturer of the Tab that is famous Lenovo Company. Then the complainant sent E mails with the same request to SO Support of the manufacturer along withphotographs of this scratch LCD vide annexures. But no fruitful result came out. So, he sent one lawyer’snotice on 11.04.2014 to O.P vide annexure but it remained un replied. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers. Notice was served upon O.P. O.P. appeared and filed W/V.
   3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

2. Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. O.P. filed W/V in the form ofa letter dt. 11.11.2014, wherefrom it is clear that as during demonstration of the Tab, complainant did not show the scratch marksto the agents of the seller and already five days passed, the grievance of the complainant cannot be redressed by O.P. But it our common knowledge that always demonstration of an electronic goods is given by a sample piece provided by the manufacturer to the seller. The particular piece which was bought by the complainant that was delivered to him in a sealed pack. Further from the E-mail dt. 07.04.2014 sent by SO Support of the manufacturer company, it has beencategorically stated that the scratch marks have been caused due to damage and it may not be seen or visible when theTab screen is off as the damage is internal. So it is very much clear that as soonas complainant started using it, the screen light was on, the complainant could see the scratch marks and immediately he rushed to O.P. And O.P. simply shrugs off its dutytowards the complainant which should not be allowed to be perpetuated any more. So, we are of candid option that O.P. sold a defective goods to the complainant. Moreover, they did not take any responsibility to redress the grievance of the complainant which definitely amounts todeficiency in service. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  389 of 2014 ( HDF 389  of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

            That the O.P is directed to refund Rs. 8200 to the complainant. The complainant do get an award of Rs. 1000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as litigation cost.

The O.P. is directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 9700 with in one month from this order i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

       The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.