Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 183.
Instituted on : 20.05.2014.
Decided on : 09.08.2016.
Naveen Kumar Singhal s/o Sh. Kapur Chand R/o H.No.1004-A/19, Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Pantel Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office E-33, Sectoer-63, Noida, 201301 UP India through its Managing Director. Ph:0120-4805200 email: customercare@pantel.in.
- Shri Hari Computer Solution, 866/22, Delhi Road, Near Bajrang Bhawan, Rohtak through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pardeep Goyat Adovcate for the complainant.
Oposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a BSNL PENTA T-Pad IS709C Tablet computer model mobile phone handset having IMEI No.351940033408289 from their dealer at Rohtak on 20.05.2013 for Rs.3999/-. It is averred that the computer tablet purchased by the complainant was comprehensively warranted for a period of one year form the date of purchase and the warranty extended to all parts from the date of purchase against defective material or workmanship. It is averred that on 20.06.2013 the alleged tablet suddenly stopped working and complainant submitted the same to opposite party no.2 on 27.06.2013 for its repair and the handset was repaired and handed back to the complainant on 27.09.2013. But it again stopped working and submitted to O.P.No.2 for repairs on 28.09.2013 which was received by the complainant on 06.11.2013 but again was found not working and submitted to the opposite party on the same day on 06.11.2013 and since then the tablet has not been repaired/replaced and is lying with opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 told that there was manufacturing defect in the tablet. It is averred that the tablet computer failed to function on a number of days during the warranty period and is lying with the opposite party since 27.06.2013 due to defective material and workmanship. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of tablet set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties through registered post. But none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite party No.2 vide order dated 09.07.2014 and opposite party no.1 vide order dated 24.09.2015 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C2 dated 20.05.2013 the complainant had purchased a BSNL Penta T-Tablet for a sum of Rs.3999/- from the authorized dealer of opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that the alleged tablet set was defective and as per document Ex.C2 dated 27.06.2013 there was some problem in the Hardware of alleged set but the same could not be repaired by the service centre despite repeated repairs vide job sheets Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 dated 28.09.2013 and 06.11.2013 respectively.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the tablet in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.05.2013 and the defect in the alleged set appeared within a short period i.e. only after one month within warranty period. As per complaint, affidavit and job sheets filed by the complainant, the defects in the alleged set appeared repeatedly which could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the tablet set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the exparte complaint upheld”, as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him” and as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where refund of price is justified.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of tablet set i.e Rs.3999/-(Rupees three thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.05.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. As per statement dated 08.07.2016 made by the complainant, the set in question is already in the possession of opposite party no.2. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.08.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
