BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.23 of 2016
Date of Instt. 11.01.2016
Date of Decision: 30.05.2018
Smt. Shashi Chadha, Aged about 56 Years, wife of Sh. Ramesh Chadha, R/o 59, Chandan Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Dive Anjur Village, Opp. Dive Petrol Pump, NH3 Mumbai-Nasik Highway, Bhiwandi, Distt. Thane, Mumbai, Maharastra-400001, through its Director/Managing Director.
2. M/s Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., 401, Supreme Chamber, Off. Veera Desai Road, 14/18 Shah Ind, Estate, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053, (through its Managing Director/Director).
3. Multitech Systems (Service Center), 797, HBC Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar City. (Through its Office Incharge).
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. DK Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 and 2 exparte.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that OP No.1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of online retail company under the name of Flipkart.com, OP No.2 is the manufacturer of ASUS tablet under the name of ASUS Technology and OP No.3 is the authorized service centre of OP No.2. The complainant in order to purchase one Tablet make ASUS Fonepad 7 Tablet (2013), White Colour bearing IMEI No.358276053013482, manufactured and marked in India by OP No.2, for Rs.14,849/- through OP No.1, vide order ID OD40422059616, Order Dated 22.04.2014, Invoice Dated 23.04.2014. The OP No.1 while promoting/displaying various other tablets on his online website suggested complainant to purchase tablet of ASUS make describing that the tablets manufactured by ASUS are one of the best quality tablet. OP No.1 further appreciated the working of tablet by describing that speed of ASUS tablet is very fast and catching network very speedily. OP No.1 further informed the complainant that the tablets manufactured by ASUS are trouble-free tablets, however in the case of any difficulty the complaint will be attended very shortly and repair if any is done to the entire satisfaction of the customer and further stated that ASUS tablets are India's largest selling tablets and whose brand name is itself guaranty of quality products. OP No.1 further informed the complainant that the tablet is guaranteed for the one year service and warranty card is inside the packing box, as the sets are received in packed condition from the company and are sold to a consumer/customer after issuance of bills and prior to issuance of bill, they can not open the box containing the tablet set therein.
2. That the complainant used the said tablet for approximately 4½ months i.e. upto 15.09.2014 and suddenly complainant observed that the said tablet set is not working properly and network problem too while in operation and after some time it becomes dead. The complainant with her husband immediately approached the company service center at 797, HBC Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar (OP No.3), where she was attended and took the said tablet from him for checking and making necessary repair therein. The representative of service centre also took one photostat copy of the original bill to make it sure that the tablet is within warranty period of one year. After having receipt the tablet from complainant, he issued receipt slip dated 17.09.2014 mentioning network problem of tablet thereon and also mentioned that the tablet is under warranty. He informed complainant that since there is a lot of rush of repair work and it will take time and inform to complainant can see him after a month for taking the set back. After a month i.e. on 19.10.2014, the complainant approached the said service centre for taking the tablet back, the said representative informed complainant that the said tablet is under repair and it will take further 10-15 days more to repair the said tablet, he further informed to complainant that it was not repairable the company gives a new tablet to complainant. In the first week of February, 2015, the complainant again approached the said service centre, then the representative of the said service centre handed over the new tablet of different model Nexus 7 with New IMEI No.355383054146833 and asked to complainant that it is better one and assured that you will be satisfied after using the new tablet of new model, however in order to avoid any further harassment to the complainant at the hands of OPs, the complainant agreed to get the tablet, though the same was less capacity i.e. internal memory of the said tablet is having 8 GB, whereas earlier purchased tablet was having 16 GB of internal memory, but this fact was not disclosed by the representative of OP No.3 at the time of replacement, but the same was came into the knowledge of the complainant later on, but after a few days, the second tablet is also occurred the same problem, he again called upon the OP No.3 i.e. service centre of the company and representative again issued job slip No.3261, dated 12.05.2015 mentioning dead problem of tablet therein and also mentioning the tablet is under warranty on approval condition. He further informed to complainant that again it will take 1-2 month for repairing from the company.
3. That the complainant on or about 05.10.2015, again approached the said service centre, then the representative of the said service centre handed over the tablet and assuring the complainant in future he will not face/suffer such problems. On the very next day i.e. 06.10.2015, the said tablet again stopped working and it again becomes dead while in operation. The complainant again immediately rushed towards the service centre, the representative again issued job sheet No.437, dated 06.10.2015, but without any fruitful results. The complainant was very surprised over the version of the service representative as the problem has occurred 3rd time with in the period of one year. The complainant was further surprised over the repudiation and goodwill of such a reputed company, who claims itself to be the world best tablet manufactured company. That because of defective tablet complainant is suffering very hard and is facing very much inconvenience. That the act and conduct of staff members of company, service stations and has caused lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Since there was a inherent manufacturing defect in the tablet which could not be rectified through ordinary repair, the complainant then served the OPs with a legal notice dated 20.11.2015, asking them to repair without cost or replace the said tablet with new one, but no reply of the notice was received from the OP No.2. However, a reply was received from OP No.1, wherein they admitted defects in the said tablet and reply was also received from OP No.3, wherein they said that the tablet is out of warranty, which is false and against the facts of the case and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the said tablet with a new one of same model and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.8000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv, who got so many dates for filing reply and ultimately, failed to file the reply of the complaint and then OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
5. OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the said tablet is out of warranty, which is very much clear from the job sheet attached with the complaint by the complainant herself and the repair estimate is given to the complainant, but she is not ready to pay the same, hence service centre was not authorized to repair the set under warranty as per the instructions of the manufacturer and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and even at present OP is not the service centre of OP No.2. On merits, the purchase of the tablet by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and further tendered additional affidavit of the complainant Ex.CB and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file and written arguments of the complainant very minutely.
9. After considering the submission of both the counsel for the parties, we find that the factum in regard to purchase of tablet through online from OP No.2 through OP No.1, after making a payment of Rs.14,849/- and Invoice was issued by the OP No.2, photostat copy of the same is Ex.C-1 and it is also established that some problem was occurred to the said tablet in the month of September, 2014 and accordingly, the same was deposited with the OP No.3 i.e. Service Centre, who issued a job sheet dated 17.09.2014 Ex.C-2 and accordingly, the OP No.3 repaired the said tablet and handed over to the complainant and the same was used by the complainant for long time and then again complainant found some defect in the mobile and again approached to the service centre in the month of February, 2015 and at that occasion, the OP No.3 exchanged the said tablet with a new tablet of different model Nexus 7 with a new IMEI No.355383054146833 and gave assurance to the complainant that this tablet is better one and assured that you will be satisfied after using the new tablet of new model, but after some time, the said tablet again got a defect and complainant approached to the OP, who issued again job sheet dated 05.10.2015, but the tablet is still not working properly and complainant alleged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and also OPs have harassed the complainant and as such, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the said tablet with a new one of same model as well as for compensation and litigation expenses.
10. Admittedly, in this case, the complaint of the complainant is not contested by the OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 and both were proceeded against exparte. The complaint has been contested by the OP No.3 i.e. Service Centre and OP No.3 has taken only one plea that the tablet in question is not within warranty and as such, a repair estimate was given to the complainant, but the complainant refused to get repair the said tablet on payment and therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.
11. We find that there is only one question remains to be considered and decided, whether there is any extended warranty of the tablet, which was replaced by the OP No.3 with the old one. It is admitted by the complainant in its complaint that the first tablet purchased by the complainant was having IMEI No.358276053013482 and when the said tablet was replaced by OP No.3 with a new one, the new IMEI number was 355383054146833. Admittedly, at the first instance, when the complainant purchased the tablet on 23.04.2014 as per invoice, there was a guaranty of one year, means upto 23.04.2015, but after replacement of old tablet, it is requirement with the complainant to get extended warranty of the replaced tablet, but the complainant did not get extended warranty, if obtained the same is not pleaded in the complaint nor any document regarding that proved on the file, so, if the tablet in question is not within a warranty, then how the same can be repaired without charges, no doubt, the complainant alleged in the complaint that the OP No.3 has described in the job sheet dated 12.05.2015 that tablet is within a warranty, but we have gone through the said job sheet dated 12.05.2015 Ex.C-3 and an other job sheet Ex.C-4 dated 06.10.2015, but the word of 'within warranty' is not enumerated in both the job sheets. So, it means that the product is not within warranty, if so then, the complainant is not entitled for get repair free of cost from the OPs. However, the complainant can get repair the same, but on the basis of payment of the repair and other charges and thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for compensation or litigation expenses.
12. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that the complaint of the complainant is to be allowed according to the above discussion and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.3 is directed to repair the tablet of the complainant on payment basis. If the OP No.3 did not repair the tablet of the complainant within 15 days after receipt of the same, then the OP No.3 will liable to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/- and accordingly, this complaint disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
30.05.2018 Member President
