Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1308/2015

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s NSA Tradex Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Jindal

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  1308

                                                Instituted on:    16.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       11.07.2016

 

Amrik Singh aged about 38 years son of Jagmail Singh, resident of House No.202/8, Ward No.8A, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Near Bhagaria Sentry Store, Kakarwal Road, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. NSA Tradex Private Limited, Franchisee of Star CJ Network India Private Limited, Khasra No. (47//19/2, 10/1, 11/2/1, 12/12/2, 19/2, 20/1 Village Taj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukhnagar, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.             SmartTab, Nakamichi Techno Private Limited, Plot No.284, Lane-3, West End Marg, Sai Dulajab, New Delhi through its Manager/Authorised signatory.

3.             Overnite Express Limited, Overnite House, 11099-C, East Park Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

4.             Sonu Goyal son of Parveen Kumar near Kakarwal Pul (Franchise holder Overnite Express Limited, Overnite House, New Delhi) Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

5.             Insurance Company not known, shall be inserted later on as and when disclosed by opposite party number 3 and 4.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ritesh Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.3&4         :               Shri Bhushan Garg. Adv.

For OP No.1 & 2       :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amrik Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an order for Tablet on OP number 1 from his house on their toll free number 1860 500 1860 and as such the complainant was sent VPP containing a tablet model smart tab Android tablet 7 inches X2 plus gold (AID) item code 146166 along with its accessories at the address of the complainant against the payment of Rs.5599/- and invoice number 201501240819 dated 24.1.2015 for Rs.5599/- was also sent, which was having one year warranty.  The grievance of the complainant is that after purchasing the tablet, the complainant found that touch screen of the tablet did not work properly and as such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP number 1. As such, the complainant availed the services of the OP number 4 for sending the tablet in question to OP number 1, who charged Rs.600/- for the safe delivery of the parcel to OP number 1 vide receipt dated 14.3.2015. It is further averred that the OP number 2 confirmed the receipt of parcel on 16.3.2015 through telephone and told that there is sensor problem. It is further averred that on 23.3.2015, the OP number 2 again called the complainant and stated that the complainant is required to deposit 50% of the total price of tablet alleging that the tablet has been received in broken condition, the complainant did not do so. As such, the OPs failed to repair the tablet in question. It is further averred that the OPs number 3 and 4 though charges the insurance charges for the consignment, but they failed to provide the particulars of the insurance company.  It is further averred that the Ops have delivered the said tablet again by Ops number 1 and 2 alleging removing of defect of tablet, but the said tablet has been delivered with screen of inferior quality/grade though the original screen of the tablet was of HD quality, as such, the Ops number 1 and 2 have tried to avoid their legal liability. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the tablet i.e. Rs.5599/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were  proceeded exparte on 30.11.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OPs number 3 and 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, that the complaint is not maintainable, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. On merits, it is denied that the OP number 4 agreed to take possession of the tablet after examining its body condition only, if payment of insurance charges besides delivery charges are paid. It is further stated that the consignments are carried at owner risk, but if the owner pays extra charges to the Ops, then the Ops are responsible for any loss or damaged during transit.  The said amount of Rs.600/- does not include insurance charges or packing charges.  However, it is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of invoice dated 24.1.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of courier receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of order dated 14.10.2015, Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of expert report, Ex.C-7 original set, Ex.C-8 copy of message and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the Ops number 3&4 has produced Ex.OP3&4/1 affidavit of Sonu Goyal, Ex.OP3*4/2 affidavit of Avinash Kumar, Ex.Op3&4/2 copy of complaint dated 12.5.2015, Ex.OP3&4/4 copy of application, Ex.OP3&4/5 copy of courier receipt, Ex.OP3&4/6 copy of unused receipt, Ex.OP3&4/7 copy of article delivery receipt and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 24.01.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the tablet in question for Rs.5599/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tab in question and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that after its purchase, the touch screen of the tablet did not work properly and started to give problem in its operation, as such, the complainant approached OP number 1, as the Op number 1 bound to repair it free of cost as the OP number 1 had provided its warranty for one year.  It is further an admitted fact on the asking of OP number 2, the complainant sent the tablet in question to OP number 1 through the courier of  OP number 4 by paying the amount of Rs.600/- on account of courier charges vide receipt dated 14.3.2015, Ex.C-3.  It is also an admitted fact that the same has been reached to the OP number 2.  But, in the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though the OPs number 1 and 2 have delivered back the said tablet to the complainant after removing of the defect therein, but  the OPs have installed inferior quality/grade screen, whereas the same was in warranty period and the Ops were bound to provide the same with the HD quality as earlier also it was having HD quality screen.  Further to support this contention the complainant has also produced on record the expert report Ex.C-6 of Shri Kamalpreet Singh, wherein it has been clearly stated that the said tablet is giving problem due to inferior quality display screen and further this fact is supported by the affidavit of Shri Kamalpreet Singh, Ex.C-6.  On the other hand, the Ops number 1 and 2 did not appear to defend their case and chose to remain exparte.

 

7.             Another point raised by the complainant in the complaint was that though the Ops demanded some amount for repair of the tablet on the ground that when it was received from the complainant for repairs, its body was broken. But, we may mention that the tab in question was sent to the OP number 1 through OP number 4 on 14.3.2015, which was confirmed that the same has been received by OP number 2 on 16.3.2015 and further called the complainant on 20.3.2015 and at that time it was not brought to the knowledge of the complainant that the tablet in question was received in broken condition. As such, we are unable to accept the contention of OP number 1 and 2 that the tablet in question was received in broken condition, rather it is an after thought only.  Moreover, the Ops number 1 and 2 even failed to appear before this Forum and chose to remain exparte.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5599/-. However, it is open for the Ops number 1 and 2 to take back the delivery of the old tablet, if so desired. The OPs number 1 and 2  shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as  litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 11, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member