BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 272 of 2015
Date of Institution: 28.4.2015
Date of Decision: 19.02.2016
Pankaj Sharma son of Sh. Parmod Kumar, resident of 4904/25, Amarkot, P.O. Khalsa College, Near Nav Bharat School, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- N.V.Computers, 78-79, GF, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Parnter/Prop.
- HCL Infosystems Ltd., Corporate Office, E-4, 5 & 6, Sector 11, Noida 201301 U.P. through its CEO/Managing Director/General Manager/Principal Officer
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.R.P. Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. Aman Prasher,Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2 : Sh. Munish Kohli,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. Present complaint has been filed by Pankaj Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Tab HCL ME TA 0000027 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 018291 dated 25.2.2013 for Rs. 6500/-. According to the complainant, since the purchase of the said Tab, the same is not working properly due to some inherent defect. Complainant visited the opposite party No.1 and requested them to set right the Tab, but to no avail. Lastly on 16.12.2013 complainant handed over the said Tab alongwith adopter for setting right the same and the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that the same would be set right within shortest period and asked the complainant to get back within one week. Thereafter the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to return back the said Tab, but opposite party No.1 failed to deliver back the same to the complainant. Complainant also got served legal notice upon opposite party No.1 to refund the price of said Tab i.e. Rs. 6500/- with interest, but opposite party No.1 neither set right the Tab nor replied the said legal notice. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the price of Tab i.e. Rs. 6500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had never lodged any complaint nor made any request regarding the alleged inherent defect in the said Tab to replying opposite party. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defects and inferior quality of specific part of the product. The liability of the replying opposite party under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective part only. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has admitted that complainant purchased one Tab HCL from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 25.2.2013 for Rs. 6500/-. It was denied that since the purchase of the said Tab, the same is not working properly due to some inherent defects therein. It was denied that complainant visited the opposite party No.1 many times to set right the said Tab. It was submitted that Tab of the complainant is in absolutely working condition and it is the complainant who has not come forward to receive the same. It was submitted that complainant was asked several times to receive back the Tab as the same is absolutely in working condition, but to no avail. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Vikas Narang Prop. Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. S.S.Jina, Manager Legal Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased one Tab HCL from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 25.2.2013 Ex.C-4 for Rs. 6500/-. The complainant submitted that the said Tab was not working properly due to some inherent defect. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to get the said Tab set right but opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Lastly on 16.12.2013 the complainant handed over the said Tab alongwith adopter to opposite party No.1 for setting right the same. Opposite party No.1 assured that the same would be set-right within shortest time and asked the complainant to get back the same within one week. But opposite party No.1 failed to set right the said Tab and return back the same to the complainant despite so many visits made by the complainant and so many requests made by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the aforesaid Tab from opposite party No.1 on 25.2.2013 but the complainant never lodged any complaint nor made any request to opposite party No.2 and lodged inherent defect in the said Tab. The complainant had not alleged in his complaint any specific irreparable manufacturing defect or inherent defect or any inferior quality of any part of the product manufactured by opposite party No.2. Under terms and conditions of the warranty, the liability of the opposite party is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective part, if any but there is no liability of the opposite party to replace the Tab unless there is some manufacturing defect beyond repairs. But the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said Tab. The Tab of the complainant is fully functional without any defect. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has produced the Tab in dispute in the Forum which is in perfectly working condition since the date of purchase as well as on the date the complainant had approached the opposite party with so called inherent defect. Counsel for the opposite party has also got recorded his statement that even the Tab was shown to the complainant in the presence of his Advocate in his chamber but he has refused to accept the same. The said Tab has no inherent defect as well as other defect and the opposite party is ready to hand over the Tab to the complainant. Opposite party produced the Tab in the Forum to hand over the same to the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the Tab HCL from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 25.2.2013 Ex.C-4 for a sum of Rs. 6500/-. The complainant has alleged that the said Tab is not working properly due to some inherent defect therein, so he handed over the said Tab to opposite party No.1 for getting the same set right . But the complainant could not point out any defect i.e. what type of defect is in the Tab, what to speak of inherent defect which is beyond repairs . Nor the complainant could produce any evidence as to what was the defect in the Tab of the complainant. The complainant has also failed to produce on record any report from any mechanic to prove that there is any manufacturing/inherent defect in the Tab of the complainant which is beyond repairs. Whereas the opposite party has categorically stated that there is no defect what to speak of inherent defect in the Tab of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 got recorded his statement on 12.12.2015 in this Forum that he has brought the Tab of the complainant in the Forum which has been in perfectly working condition since the date of purchase as well as on the date the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 with so called inherent defect. Not only this counsel for the opposite party also got recorded that even the Tab was shown to the complainant in the presence of his Advocate in his chamber but he has refused to accept the same. The abovesaid Tab is having no inherent defect or any other defect which is beyond repair and the opposite party is ready to hand over the Tab of the complainant and opposite party No.1 produced the Tab in the Forum to hand over the same to the complainant. But the complainant refused to take the Tab. All this shows that the complainant has failed to prove on record any defect what to speak of inherent defect which is beyond repair in the Tab of the complainant.
11. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant served legal notice dated 24.2.2014 Ex.C-2 upon the opposite party No.1 but they did not furnish any reply, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. Here we do not agree with this contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant because when the Tab of the complainant is fully functional without any defect and he has handed over the Tab to opposite party No.1 without any defect in the same, service of legal notice is of no value when the Tab of the complainant is quite right and fully functional without any defect what to speak of inherent defect beyond repairs.
12. Resultantly we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to take the Tab back from opposite party No.1 at any time during working hours.
13. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
19.02.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
