DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.429 of 2017
Date of institution: 20.06.2017 Date of decision : 06.05.2019
J.P. Sharma, Flat No.410, Pine Homes, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Swipe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Proprietor, Building No.5, Block No.3, Reality Warehousing, Gat No.2323/1 Old, Gat No.1337/1 (New), Nagar Road, Wagholi, Pune (Maharashtra) 412207.
2. M/s. DEN Snapdeal, T.V. Shop through its Chief Executive Officer/Proprietor, 335, Jawala Mill Road, Udyog Vihar IV, Phase V, Sector 19, Gurugram (Haryana) 122008.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Claim against OP No.2 given up on 26.09.2018.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased a TAB manufactured by OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 06.02.2017 vide invoice for a sum of Rs.3,199/- plus shipping charges of Rs.251/-. That TAB was received by complainant on 12.02.2017. At the time of booking of TAB, OP No.2 gave warranty for one year. However, screen of the TAB stood cracked just after 10 days regarding which information to OP No.1 was given through e-mail. Thereafter OP No.1 suggested complainant to contact their service centre in Sector 14, Panchkula. On such contact to service centre, complainant was called upon to pay Rs.750/-. On further contact to OP No.2 on phone, complainant got reply as if it sells the products only and has no connection with complaint of the product because OP No.1 is responsible for removal of defects. Correspondence through email or otherwise continued with OPs. Ultimately OP No.1 refused to entertain the complaint on ground that it sold product to OP No.2 and not to complainant. Order was booked from Zirakpur and TAB even was received at Zirakpur and as such this Forum alleged to be having jurisdiction. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund price of the TAB namely Rs.3,450/- and pay compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1,00,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Complainant by suffering statement on 26.09.2018 relinquished the claim against OP No.2 and as such complaint against OP No.2 had been withdrawn. OP No.1 is ex-parte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and then closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Complainant through his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and invoice Ex.C-1 able to prove that he purchased TAB in question online through OP No.2 and same was manufactured by OP No.1. Price of Rs.3,450/- in all paid through invoice Ex.C-1 and thereafter TAB was received at Zirakpur and used at Zirakpur and as such certainly this Forum has jurisdiction. Ex.C-1 shows that purchase was made on 06.02.2017, but email Ex.C-2 establishes that first complaint regarding the TAB being not upto the mark lodged on 02.03.2017 by complainant by claiming that this TAB is not working properly because device is of inferior quality. Through Ex.C-2 it is also claimed that touch screen of the device has broken on its own, which means that as per claim of complainant touch screen has broken without use of any external force. As breakage of touch screen took place at its own and as such certainly same fact ipso facto establishes as if the product was having fault. That fault bound to be removed, more over when the same has occurred within one month of purchase and receipt of the product by complainant. Email response dated 03.03.2017 was received by complainant from OP No.1 team for calling upon complainant to share the job sheet/work order number with them, if the device has been submitted in the service centre. Complainant was divulged through email dated 03.03.2017 that updation of the complaint will be done with intimation to him. Refund of price sought by complainant through email dated 10.03.2017 which is part of Ex.C-2. Despite service of notice Ex.C-3 through postal receipt Ex.C-4, needful has not been done and as such certainly OP No.1 has rendered deficient services to complainant. Snapshot of SMSs produced as Ex.C-5 for showing that complainant was in touch with OP No.1 for redressal of grievance. As complainant not in a position to work on the TAB with broken touch screen and OP No.1 has not rendered due service, despite notice and correspondence and as such certainly complainant entitled for refund of paid amount of Rs.3,450/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of issue of invoice Ex.C-1 namely 06.02.2017 till payment. On receipt of such payment by complainant, OP No.1 may collect damaged TAB from complainant at its own expenses by writing to complainant in that respect with disclosure of address. Complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses because OP No.1 has not bothered to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte against OP No.1 with direction to it to refund the received amount of Rs.3450/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of invoice Ex.C-1 namely 06.02.2017 till payment. OP No.1 may collect damaged TAB from complainant at its own expenses by writing to complainant in that respect with disclosure of address. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1. Complaint against OP No.2 already withdrawn. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
May 06, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
