Complaint taken on file:15.05.2017

     Order delivered on: 21.10.2022

BEFORE THE HON´BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, ARIYALUR

      PRESENT:

Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, P.hd : President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L : Member - I

                                                Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A., B.L :Member - II

Consumer Complaint (RBT) No.84/2022

Friday, the twenty first day of October, 2022

M.Krishnaveni,

446/16, II Floor, 24^th Street,

N.S.K Nagar, Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 041                                                                         ...           Complainant

 -Vs-

1).M/s.iBall Head Office,

Rep. by its Managing Director

87 & 89, Mistry Industrial Complaex,

MIDC Cross Road A, Anderi East,

Behind Tunga International Hotel,

Mumbai – 400 093

2).M/s. Solutions, Rep. by its Proprietor,

WB-10/11, Renaissance logistics park,

Near Vill. Padgha Off, NH-3, Taluk Biwandi,

District Thane – 421 302

3). Best I.T World India Pvt Ltd,

Rep. by its Mananaging Director,

Leader Palace, Swami Pandaram Street,

Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002

4). Amazon India Bridade Gateway,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road,

Malleswaram (West), Bangalore – 560 055

5). Adhinath Compluters,

Rep. by its proprietor,

11, Wallers Road,

Chinddripet, Chennai – 600 002                                            …           Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant: M/s. K. Dhanalakshmi

Counsel for 1^st and 3rd Opposite Parties: M/s. Antony Jesus

Counsel for 4^th Opposite Party: M/s. Rights and Marks, M/s.Jitendar Saini

Opposite Parties 2 and 5 were set exparte on 29.03.2019

On perusal of records in this case, we delivered the following

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President and Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II

1.The Complainant has filed this case as against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of R.16,970/- the cost of the iBall tab, Rs.2300/- paid for the charger, Rs.235/- paid for the Bluetooth speaker with interest from 21.06.2016 till the date of order and praying to order a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this litigation.

The facts of complaint in brief:

2.     The complaint is containing a lot of grammar and spelling mistakes, at least one or two mistakes per each and every line making it very difficult to understand what the complainant is trying to convey. For instance, in paragraph 24 of the complaint, in the first line, the complainant has stated as “since that it has been lying idly at home”. In her proof affidavit also, in paragraph 18 in the first line, the same thing is repeated. Most of the mistakes repeat in her proof affidavit too. An interpreter is required to understand what the case of the complainant is. The complainant could have prepared the complaint in Tamil so that she could have conveyed her case in a better way. Anyhow this commission feels that the following could be the case of the complainant.

3.         That the complainant has purchased an iBall slide Brace X1 tablet, an electronic gadget for her daughter Raashmi from the 2^nd Opposite Party namely M/s.Solutions who is the Online Retailer of Amazon India Ltd (the 4^th Opposite Party) on 18-06-2016 for a value of Rs.16,970/- bearing Invoice No: MH-BOM4-135397491-38099. The display of the product got damaged on 26.07.2016 within a month in spite of utmost care. In fact, the screen was intact but the touch-screen, a layer behind the screen was damaged. The product was handled with utmost care but still it has happened. The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party, the official service center of the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer of the product. The 3^rd opposite party refused to repair the product free of cost but charged Rs.2,300/-. Even though warranty was in force, the complainant did not indulge in any arguments.

4.         The 3^rd opposite party did not return the tablet and instead he replaced it with another tab on 13.08.2016 after many weeks. Having no other option, the complainant accepted the replaced tab and purchased a new charger from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs.325/-. After coming home, she noticed that the camera in the replaced tab was not working. She gave it to 3^rd opposite party for service, the 3^rd opposite party replaced the camera. Once the camera issue was solved, charging issue started. When charger is connected, it showed as “45% charged”, when charger is disconnected, it showed “1%”. As 3^rd opposite party’s agent insisted for invoice copy, the complainant had to download it from the internet. The new agent of 3^rd opposite party was very rude, he did not check the charger properly and returned it in the same condition.

5.         The complainant and her daughter tried to charge the tablet with another charger but failed. Then she has found that the tablet itself was having trouble. As she approached the 3^rd opposite party again, they refused to resolve the issue. The complainant went to the service center of the 3^rd opposite party to repair a product but he returned a different product and that product was also defective. For that defective product, he has sold a new charger for Rs.325/-. Again and again the complainant and her daughter had to go to the 3^rd opposite party office but in vain.

6.         The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 20.12.2016. on receiving the notice, on 27.12.2016 a negotiator from iBall (1^st opposite party) had approached for negotiation. The complainant was asking refund from the opposite parties but a person from one of the opposite parties called the complainant but was not ready to refund the money and hence she refused the option of negotiation. Three opposite parties have cheated the complainant by selling a faulty product and again by replacing it with another faulty product. Hence, they may be held liable for the mental agony caused to the complainant and the 3 opposite parties may be held liable to refund the cost of the product of Rs.16,970/-, the cost of Rs.2300/-  by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party towards service charges, Rs.325/- the cost of the new charger purchased from the 3^rd opposite party, a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant and a cost of Rs.25,000/- incured by the complainant for sending legal notice and for filing the case.

The facts of written version of the Opposite Parties:

7.         The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have jointly filed a Written version and Proof affidavit. The 4^th opposite party (Amazon India Ltd) has filed written version and Proof affidavit separately. The opposite parties 1 and 3 say that there is no company existing in the name of the 1^st opposite party. The word “iBall” is a brand name of the products of the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint suffers from the point of mis-joinder of unnecessary party. In fact, the complainant sent 2 advocate notices before filing the complaint. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have sent prompt reply to both notices on 27.12.2016 and on 11.01.2017. The complainant has suppressed their reply notices.

8.         The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have done their best service to the complainant on each and every occasion. The complainant collected her Brace-X1 tablet bearing IMEI No:911431850385563 after repair in good condition after thoroughly checking the same from the 3^rd opposite party. She was fully satisfied and signed in the customer issue slip. The complainant visited the service center on 26.07.2016 with the touch panel damaged tablet. Such physical damages are not covered in the warranty, it was clearly explained to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied with the service of the 3^rd opposite party.

9.         Since the 1^st opposite party’s office is mentioned as situated in Mumbai, it does not come under the jurisdiction of this commission. The damage in the touch panel could have been caused by negligence or by mishandling of the tablet and such damages are not covered in the warranty. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that her daughter did all the things like visiting the service center, buying he charger, collecting the serviced gadget, etc. but she has failed to submit an affidavit of her daughter to prove her case. They also deny the allegations of the complainant that a negotiator from 1^st opposite party talked to her advocate and talked to her over phone and tried to pacify her. She has not filed any proof of the same. Therefore, they pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

10.       The 4^th opposite party (Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd) has filed a separate written version and Proof affidavit. Their version is that the complainant has wrongly mentioned the name of this opposite party as Amazon India Development center Ltd.  The complainant has had all the dealings with the 3^rd opposite party and has made all the allegations against the 3^rd opposite party only but unnecessarily added all the other opposite parties. The opposite party 4 has nothing to do with this case. The complainant has purchased the product through us. The 2nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the product, has appointed the 3^rd opposite party as their official service provider. The complainant has done all the services with the 3^rd opposite party. The 4^th opposite party has stated that complainant has arrayed them as a party in this case only for the reason that they delivered the product. Hence, the 4^th opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint for mis-joinder of unnecessary party with cost.

11.  Points to be considered:

1). Does the complaint suffer from the point of mis-joinder of unnecessary parties as alleged by the opposite parties?

2). what is the relief the complainant is entitled to? Whether compensation and cost can be awarded to the complainant?

3). What are the other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Points 1 :

12.       That the complainant has purchased the gadget from the 2^nd Opposite Party namely M/s.Solutions who is the Online Retailer of Amazon India Ltd (the 4^th Opposite Party). The display of the product got damaged on 26.07.2016 within a month, the screen was intact but the touch-panel, a layer behind the screen was damaged. The product was handled with utmost care by the daughter of the complainant but still it has damaged. The 3^rd opposite party, the official service center of the 1^st opposite party has serviced the product but refused to repair the product free of cost and charged Rs.2,300/- for replacing the touch panel to the tablet. The complainant claims that even though warranty was in force, she did not indulge in any arguments and also states that “the 3^rd opposite party replaced the tablet with another older tab on 13.08.2016 after many weeks and having no other option, I accepted the replaced tab and after coming home, I noticed that the camera in the replaced tab was not at all working, hence again I gave it to 3^rd opposite party for service, the 3^rd opposite party replaced the camera and the charging issue started to occur with the tablet.

13.       The complainant has accepted to take an older tablet against her new tablet in spite of the fact that its touch panel has been replaced at a cost of Rs.2,300/-. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have mentioned in their reply notice dated 27-12-2016 that the complainant on her own willingness has opted to take the older tablet instead of the serviced new tablet. Since that older tablet needed a charger, she had to buy a new charger which she bought from the 3^rd opposite party and as it was having some charging issue that she had to take it for service again and again. The complainant herself on her own willingness exchanged he product with an older tablet and puts the blame on the 3^rd opposite party. There was no deficiency in the service of the opposite parties. The complainant knowing very well that the touch panel is not covered in the warranty has paid for it and got it serviced, then she has opted to exchange the same with an older tablet. The 3^rd opposite party has always repaired and serviced the product with care, they have rightly charged for the damaged spare part which is not covered in the warranty and hence they can not be made responsible for the charging problems in the older tablet which the complainant opted to exchange on her own.

14.       The opposite parties 1 and 3 say that there is no company existing in the name as mentioned in the address of the 1^st opposite party. The word “iBall” is a brand name of the products of the 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint suffers from the point of mis-joinder of necessary party. The 4^th opposite party (Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd) has stated that the complainant has wrongly mentioned their name as “Amazon India Development center Ltd”.  The complainant has had all the dealings with the 3^rd opposite party and has made all the allegations against the 3^rd opposite party only but unnecessarily added all the other opposite parties. The opposite party 4 has nothing to do with this case. The complainant has purchased the product through them and how can they be made liable for the problems in the services provided by the 3^rd opposite party, a service center.

15.       The 2nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the product, has appointed the 3^rd opposite party as their official service provider. The complainant has done all the services with the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant has approached the 5^th opposite party only once for getting expert opinion or engineer’s appraisal of the product and as such there seems to be absolutely no allegation against them. But they have been added as a party. The 4^th opposite party has been added in the complainant as a party only for the reason that they delivered the product and there is absolutely no allegation against them. Therefore, this commission holds that the complaint suffers from the point of mis-joinder of unnecessary parties. Hence, Point No:1 is answered as follows: The complaint suffers from the point of mis-joinder of unnecessary parties.

Points No.2 and 3:

16.       The complainant states in the complaint and in her proof affidavit that her daughter did all the things starting from using the tablet to visiting the service center, buying the charger, collecting the serviced gadget, etc. but she has failed to submit an affidavit of her daughter in support of her complaint. The complainant has stated in her complaint and in her proof affidavit that 3 opposite parties have jointly cheated but has mentioned which are those 3 out of 5 opposite parties. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove that the damage in the touch panel of the product was not caused because of the mis-handling and that the damage is covered in the warranty. Hence, she has failed to prove her entire case. Therefore, this commission concludes that the complainant has not proved her case. The points No.2 and 3 are answered as follows: The complainant has not proved deficiency in the service of the opposite parties and hence is not eligible to get any compensation or cost from the opposite parties.

As result this Commission passes the following ORDER:

            The complainant has not proved her case against the opposite parties with necessary evidence and hence this case dismissed. No cost. The parties have to bear their expenses.

This Order was dictated by me to the steno today the twenty first day of October, 2022, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected by him and was pronounced by us in the open court today.

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -II

Witness examined by the Complainant: Krishnaveni (Complainant)

Witness examined by the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties: J.K.Kannan (Area Service Manager of 3^rd Opposite Party)

Witness examined by the 4th Opposite Party: Rahul Sundaram (Senior Corporate counsel of Litigations of O.P-4)

Exhibits marked by the Complainant:

Exhibits marked by the 1^st and 3rd Opposite Parties:

Exhibits marked by the 4th Opposite Party:

                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                            Member - I

                                                                                                            Member -I