Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Avtar Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is a citizen of India and resident of Amritsar, Punjab and all transactions have been executed from Amritsar and as such, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Opposite Party No.3 provides Digital Cable TV services in North India and Opposite Party No.3 claims to currently offer 374 Digital Channels and 30 Radio Channels (ANN-C1). Opposite Party No.3 has dedicated channel No. 133 to Opposite Party No.2 where Opposite Party No.2 offers, promotes and propagates online sales of Electronics and Consumer articles. The complainant while viewing the TV advertisement of Opposite Party No.2 being telecasted on Cable Network of Opposite Party No.3, at Channel No.133, Opposite Party No.2 allured complainant to purchase an electronic gadget called ‘Tablet’ which is a product of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 claimed and convinced with great logic, claims and assurances that said tablet was as one of the best item in its range of the offer price of Rs.3098/- alongwith free “Cover cum Key Board” and as such, the complainant placed an order for said tablet on 29.1.2016 on telephone number 02266610100 of Opposite Party No.2 as suggested in Visual Advertisement of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 cable transmission. For mode of payment, the complainant opted for ‘cash on delivery’ mode which meant that the complainant opted for making payment cash on the spot to courier delivery boy who was to come to deliver the item. As such, the complainant was to collect the sealed courier parcel against payment of Rs.3098/- cash to delivery boy and then to open the parcel to get the item. A parcel was delivered by courier on 3rd February, 2016 as per above terms and complainant paid Rs.3098/- to delivery boy and received the said parcel in sealed condition. On opening the parcel, the complainant found that tablet so supplied was not in working condition and totally dead. This parcel contained a Retail Invoice No.21601300831 dated 30.1.2016 for Rs.3098/- of surprisingly Opposite Party No.4 for sale of tablet with accessory. The complainant immediately called Opposite Party No.2 on customer care telephone number 02266610100 and Opposite Party No.2 in terms suggested the complainant to talk to customer care of original manufacturer of item i.e. Opposite Party No.1 on its customer care number 9555699988. The complainant made phone call on Opposite Party No.1 Customer Care Mobile No.9555600088 and informed Opposite Party No.1 that the item tablet so supplied was totally dead and in turn Opposite Party No.1 suggested the complainant for various procedures to reboot the item which the complainant tried well, but it all went in vain. Finally Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to send him back the item duly packed by courier for replacement. As desired by Opposite Party No.1, the complainant dispatched the defective tablet to Opposite Party No.1 by courier on 25.3.2016. After a few days, Opposite Party No.1 sent the replacement of tablet by courier. When the complainant opened the parcel, it was found that replaced tablet has been sent with its display broken and the cover cum key board was also missing. The complainant immediately informed this position to Opposite Party No.1 on its customer care mobile that the tablet so replaced had been received with its Display Broken and hence it was not usable and also the cover cum key board was missing too, but Opposite Party No.1 denied to listen anything and refused to entertain the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests and protests of complainant, Opposite Party No.1 refused to replace the defective tablet and complainant felt very humiliated and insulted. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs through the instant complaint.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3098/- as paid by him.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.
c) Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficient services and for causing harassment, insult and mental agony to him.
d) Costs and compensation be imposed upon the Opposite Parties for literally forcing complainant into the present complaint alongwith any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed to the complainant and against the Opposite Parties.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, inspite of due service, none put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties and as such, the Opposite Parties were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of the brochure on website Ex.C2, copy of retail invoice dated 30.1.2016 for Rs.3098/- Ex.C3, copy of courier receipt Ex.C4, copy of photographs of the article received in broken condition Ex.C5 and closed the exparte evidence.
4. We have heard the representative of the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased Tablet alongwith free ‘Cover cum Key Board’ online from Opposite Parties on 30.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.3098/-, copy of retail invoice accounts for Ex.C3. On 3.2.2016, the tablet in dispute was received in parcel in a sealed condition. On opening parcel, the complainant found that the tablet so supplied was not in working condition and was totally dead. The complainant immediately called Opposite Party No.2 through customer care telephone number 02266610100 and Opposite Party No.2 in terms, suggested the complainant to talk to customer care of original manufacturer of item i.e. Opposite Party No.1 on its customer care number 9555699988. The complainant made phone call on Customer Care Mobile No.9555600088 of Opposite Party No.1 and informed Opposite Party No.1 that the item tablet so supplied was totally dead and in turn, Opposite Party No.1 suggested the complainant for various procedures to reboot the item which the complainant tried well, but it all went in vain. Finally Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to send it back the item duly packed by courier for replacement. As desired by Opposite Party No.1, the complainant dispatched the defective tablet to Opposite Party No.1 by courier on 25.3.2016. After a few days, Opposite Party No.1 sent the replacement of tablet by courier receipt Ex.C4. When the complainant opened the parcel, it was found that replaced tablet has been sent with its display broken and the ‘cover cum key board’ was also missing. The complainant immediately informed its customer care mobile number that the tablet so replaced had been received with its Display Broken and hence it was not usable and also the cover cum key board was missing too, but Opposite Party No.1 denied to listen anything and refused to entertain the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 being manufacturer and Opposite Party No.2 being the seller are deficient in service as they have supplied as well as promoted the sale of defective item i.e. the tablet in dispute. Opposite Party No.3 has been defaulter for promoting a misleading propaganda under section 2(1) (r) (i) representing that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model. Opposite Party No.4 is main defaulter responsible for violation of section 2(1) ( r) (v) on account of representing that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have and have billed the item, but for the sake of warranty shift the onus of Opposite Party No.1. As such, all the Opposite Parties are responsible for deficient service as well as supplying the defective tablet to the complainant and thus have indulged in unfair trade practice. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the Opposite Parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant has sought for refund of sale price amounting to Rs.3098/- besides compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In our considered view, all the Opposite Parties are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund the amount of Rs.3098/- to the complainant. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Opposite Parties are granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. All the Opposite Parties are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order 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.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 26.10.2016.
