BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.684-13

Date of Institution: 08-10-2013

Date of Decision: 08-06-2015  

Arti Arora resident of H.No..4599-A, Street No.5, Ranjit Pura, Ganga Building, Near Khalsa College, Amrisar.

Complainant

Versus

1. North India Top Company Private Limited, through its Manager/ Business-In-Charge/ Partner/ Proprietor/ Managing Director, having its office at village: Sampka, Tehsil: Farukh Nagar, Patuadi Road, Behind Gati Logistics Park, Gurgaon.
2. Proprietor/ Manager of M/s.R.V.Solutions Private Limited, having its office at Shop No. 201, 202, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewel Bakery, Amritsar. 
3. M/s.ZYNC Global Private Limited, having its office at Sector 2, Noida U.P.India-201301.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.K.K.Arora, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ms.Arti Arora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased a 7” Capacitive Tablet with Calling (Sim Slot) make Zync having its IMEI No. 91122850873686, Model name Z99-2G-Tablet for a sum of  Rs.6,990/-, vide invoice No.PAT/022013/12504 dated 1.2.2013 from the Opposite Parties. Complainant alleges that the said Tablet of the complainant became defective as its touch was from starting giving problem and finally it stopped to work. The complainant lodged a complaint on 4.7.2013 with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1, as  a result of which they assigned her a complaint No. RVSRN1308CLP0040 and called the complainant to collect the Tablet after a week. The complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 after a week, but the Opposite Party No.2 called the complainant to come up after two days and when the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2, they failed to give any satisfactory reply. Ultimately, in the month of August, 2013 the Opposite Party No.2 sent the Tablet in question to Opposite Party No.1 and told the complainant to contact the Opposite Party No.1 for the aforesaid product and assigned her a complaint No.RVSRN1308CLP0087. The complainant many a times requested the Opposite Parties  to replace the Tablet with new one as the same can not be rectified in any manner as it is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.                 Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.6,990/- i.e. the purchase price of the defected Tablet to the complainant or to replace the  defected product with new one. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on 17.6.2013, the complainant called in service centre of Opposite Party No.1 and reported some manufacturing defects and charging problems in the said product and subsequently, as per process the complainant was referred to  Brand Area Service Centre by Opposite Party No.1 to get technical support and opinion about the said product. The complainant submitted the Tablet in question with Brand Service centre, but the complainant has never shared the job sheet with Opposite Party No.1. Since then said product was lying with Brand Service Centre. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation regarding the Tablet in question.  The complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 4.7.2014 with Touch, Auto work, Battery not fill, problem. Same problems were checked on the spot and it was found that the Touch Auto Work was a problem which will be resoled by the company level and it will take more than twenty days, and the same was narrated to the complainant  on the spot before issuing a job sheet and gave her a visiting card and asked her to come after twenty days to collect the Tablet in question, but the complainant did not turn up to collect the Tablet in question.  The replacement is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem. The Tablet in question is ready and lying with the Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant can collect it from the Opposite Party No.2. Complainant was called several times to collect the Tablet in question from Opposite Party No.2, even before filing the present complaint, but the complainant did not turn up to collect her Tablet. Even the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has also stated at bar that the said Tablet in question was swapped by the company and  Opposite Party No.2 is ready to hand over the same to the complainant, but the complainant again refused to same offer and demanding new Tablet with sealed packed box.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, so Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.8.2014 of this Forum.          
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjiv Mehra Ex.OP1/1 alongwith one document Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
7. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.Op2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
8. 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 both the parties.
9. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased  7” Capacitive Tablet with Calling (Sim Slot) make Zync for a sum of  Rs.6,990/- vide invoice dated 1.2.2013 Ex.C2 with one year warranty. Complainant alleges that the said Tablet became defective as its touch started giving problem and finally stopped to work after a few days from its purchase. The complainant lodged a complaint on 4.7.2013 with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1, with complaint No. RVSRN1308CLP0040 vide job sheet Ex.C3. The complainant was told to collect the Tablet after a week. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 after a week, but the  Opposite Party No.2 failed to hand over the Tablet to the complainant and again told the complainant  to visit after two days and after two days also, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to hand over the tablet to the complainant. Ultimately, in the month of August, 2013 the Opposite Party No.2 sent the Tablet in question to Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant was told to contact  the Opposite Party No.1 for the aforesaid product and a complaint No.RVSRN1308CLP0087 was assigned  to the complaint of the complainant, but the Opposite Parties  failed to remove the defect in the aforesaid tablet nor they returned the same to the complainant.    Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that on 17.6.2013, the complainant approached  Opposite Party No.1 through service centre and  reported some manufacturing defects and charging problems in the said product and the complaint was referred to  Opposite Party No.2. The complainant submitted said product with   Brand Area Service Centre  i.e. Opposite Party No.2 vide job Sheet Ex.C3. Thereafter, the complainant never contacted Opposite Party No.1. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
11. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.2 is that the Tablet in question is ready and lying with Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant can collect it from Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 has swapped the tablet of the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to  hand over the same to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanding new tablet with sealed pack box. Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with problem in his tablet which was checked on the spot and it was found that the Touch Auto Work was a problem which would  be resolved by the company level while issuing job sheet Ex.C3. The complainant was told that it will take more than twenty days for the repair of the tablet of the complainant. Said tablet was sent to the company, but it was not received by  Opposite Party No.2. The complainant was asked to contact the company directly. After that the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2. In the meanwhile the agreement between Opposite Party No.2 and company was terminated. The complainant has not disclosed this fact to the Fora.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased  7” Capacitive Tablet with Calling (Sim Slot) make Zync for a sum of  Rs.6,990/- vide invoice dated 1.2.2013 Ex.C2. Said Tablet became defective having  touch problem and finally stopped to work. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 who referred the matter to Opposite Party No.2, authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3, who took the tablet and issued job sheet Ex.C3, but the  Opposite Party No.2 could not remove the defect in the tablet and they ultimately, sent the same to the company. Even the company could not repair the said tablet and make it fully functional, rather ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 got recorded his statement that the company has swapped the tablet of the complainant in lieu of the complainant’s Tablet, but the complainant refused to take the swapped tablet. Ultimately, on 14.5.2014 ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 got recorded his statement that tablet of the complainant is ready to be delivered to the complainant after repair and being swapped and the complainant can receive the same. All this shows that Opposite Party No.2 failed to repair the tablet of the complainant and make it fully functional, rather they are offering swapped tablet to the complainant which fully proves that the tablet purchased by the complainant is not repairable, that is why the Opposite Party No.2 is offering to swap the same with another one. Opposite Party No.2 can not enforce the complainant to take swapped tablet. If the tablet of the complainant is not  repairable, then the Opposite Parties are liable to either replace the same with new one of same make and model  or to refund  the price of the tablet to the complainant.  
13. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Parties  are directed  either to replace the tablet of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount i.e. price of the tablet to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,000/-.  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.

Dated: 08-06-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member