Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1104/2013

SIDDHANT BHANSALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANTEL TECH. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                              CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-1104/13

In the matter of:

Sh. Siddhant Bhansali

Son of  Sharad Bhansali,

F-21, Geetanjali Enclave,

New Delhi 110017

Complainant

Vs

Pantel Technologies Private Limited

214, Triveni Complex,

E10-12,Jawahar Park,

Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

Opposite Party

 

                                                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-09/01/2014

                                                                                DATE OF ORDER         -04/09/2015

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant paid the OP for the purchase of Penta T-Pad IS701R which suffers from the severe malfunctioning defect. The complainant was provided with three replacements within one year of purchase of the products suffering from identical manufacturing defects and the OP could not resolve the defect. The OP was deceiving the customers by misleading with regard to the quality of the product. The complainant has suffered alot in one year, he went pillar to post, from service centre to factory causing him mental pressure and frustration. The complainant has prayed for refund of the money that is Rs.3,499/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/-for mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

            OP was served with the notice and he was provided opportunity to file the written statement. They failed to file the written statement. Case proceeded exparte. The complainant filed his affidavit which is on record.

            We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record.

            The complainant has filed over whelming evidence Annexure P-2 to P-10 and the number of E-mails which has been exchanged between the two parties. The E-mails of the OP clearly shows that the OP have promised him to provide the functional and none defective key paid and have also promised for providing the extended warranty. In the affidavit of the complainant it is specifically mentioned that the three key pads which has been provided to him one after another were suffering from identical defects and the defects pointed out by him could not be rectified by the OP. This is not controverted by OP. The complainant has registered his complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the key pads. Even the replacements provided were having the same defects. In view of the facts that the statement on oath of the complainant coupled with the evidence on record clearly establishes that the key pad of the OP was suffering from manufacturing defect which could not be rectified even after three replacements. It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

            We allow this complaint. The OP shall pay to the complainant the cost of the key pad that is Rs.3,499/- together with 9% interest thereon from the date of the filing this complaint till it is paid to the complainant. This is clear from the record that the complainant was tortured and he has to run from one service centre to the factory of the OP. The number of E-mails which he has written to the OP clearly establishes the agony of the complainant. We award him the compensation of rs.10,000/- which shall also include the cost of litigation. This amount be paid within 45 days, if not paid, the complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest over the amount till it is finally paid.

            Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                           POONAM MALHOTRA                              N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                               (MEMBER)                                       (N.A.ZAIDI)