Order-11.
Date-06/05/2015.
Complainant Subhasish Bhandari by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a Auxus Core Tab X4 from op no.2 on 27.03.2013 through ebay in an online shopping window and after purchasing the said tab, complainant has been facing problem to use the tab on an from 24.08.2014. Then complainant handed over the tab to service centre op no.1 on 26.08.2014. Complainant raised support ticket on 09.10.2014 to Iberry for service related guideline regarding the Ausus Core X4 but asked complainant to contract service centre and complainant came to know after continuous pressing that op no.1 M/s. Prayas Infocom expressed the inability to make any service. When op no.2 suggested to send the tab to Chennai service centre for servicing of Auxus Core X4. On Iberry’s suggestion on 14.10.2014 complainant deposited the Auxus Core X4 for servicing as suggested by Iberry support in Chennai.
Complainant is a sales engineer and bought this tab for service purpose but not getting any service of the same suffered much and hampered the work. Thereafter complainant sent the said tab to op no.2 support centre in Chennai on 15.10.2014 through courier. But they reported that no spare parts are available in their service centre. When complainant made several option for replacing or moving to similar configuration even on payment for the spare parts moving to different tablet, op no.2 did not accept any of the options but always pressing that the non-working tab should be sent back to complainant. When complainant drew the matter under attention of CA & FBP, Kolkata Central for redressal on 31.10.2014 and the Assistant Director of CA & FBP, Kolkata Central made their best efforts to solve the dispute but mediation failed when complainant prayed for relief and appeared before this Forum for redressal either to refund the price of Rs. 16,750/- and also compensation etc.
Notices were duly served upon both the ops which is evident from the postal internet result. Op no.1 appeared and submitted that the company is committed directly to the customer regarding any service, repair etc. and will pick up directly from the customer and will repair and send back to the customer directly and on receipt of the information from the op, op intimated to the customer on 14.10.2014 reported that they are not able to repair for want of parts and thereafter the matter reported to the op no.2 and thereafter complainant has taken back the said handset on 14.10.2014 with the intention of availing the direct service from the company. So, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1.
But op no.2 did not appear to contest the case. Though notice upon op no.2 was served on 12.02.2015 as per postal internet result. In the above circumstances after hearing the argument, finally order is being passed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and written version of op no.1 and also considering the document including the different communications as made online, it is undisputed fact that this handset was purchased from op no.2 through ebay on an online shopping window on 27.03.2013 and fact remains that op no.1 failed to rectify the said defects and reported the matter to op no.2 and subsequently as per letter of the information through online by the op no.2, complainant sent the same set i.e. Auxus Core X4 and op no.2 received the same and reported that warranty period already expired and it is discontinued and out dated model required spare parts are no longer available with them.
In the above situation and after receipt of the letter dated 15.11.2014 by email, it is proved that op received the said tab and they did not repair it stating that it is discontinued and outdated model and also showing that warranty period is also expired. But truth is that product was bought on 27.03.2013 and about defects, it was reported on 24.08.2014 and no doubt after 17 months the problem was detected. Thereafter the matter was reported and fact remains that op tried to prove that warranty was only for one year. But as per warranty it was for 60 months. But considering the email letter to the op no.2 it is clear that one outdated tab was sold by the op no.2 knowing fully well that if any problem would be found, in that case it cannot be cured for want of parts that is the fact in view of the fact that op no.2 reported the same to the complainant ultimately on 15.11.2014. It is also fact that tab is in the custody of the op no.2 and op no.2 is trying to create pressure to the complainant that damaged, defective and outdated and discontinued model of the op no.2 and considering that fact it is clear that it is one kind of deceiving the customer by selling such article by ebay online shopping. It is one kind of practice for cheating the customer in so many manner and anyhow after considering the entire fact, it is clear that op no.1 as service centre did not give any relief because company did not provide such parts for repairing and truth is that op no.1 has no other alternative but to ask the complainant to send it directly to the op no.2 and that was done. But op no.2 after getting the same for months together reported that it is outdated and discontinued model. So, they are not able to repair it. But one question is whether the warranty is there or not. But after considering the entire materials, it is found that warranty period was there and within that period it was sent to the op no.2 but op no.2 now is trying to say that warranty period is expired.
But after considering the materials, we have gathered that this op no.2 has been running a deceitful manner of business to deceive the complainant including such type of customer which is proved. So, invariably op no.2 must have to compensate either by supplying a new set which is not outdated or discontinued one or to pay the refund the entire amount because it is proved that op no.2 deceived the complainant and no doubt complainant has suffered much of such sort of ebay online shopping is dangerous at present and no doubt such sort of company should be properly dealt with, otherwise in future the people at large shall be deceived and no doubt in the meantime complainant has been deceived by the op no.2 for which complainant is entitled to get a relief. When it is not manner of service and selling of defective tab is well proved against the op no.2.
In the result, the complaint succeeds in part against the op no.2 in exparte form.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed in exparte form against op no.2 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and same is dismissed against op no.1 without any cost.
Op no.2 is hereby directed to supply a new set which is not discontinued and outdated as per choice of the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default or failing which op no.2 shall have to pay the entire price of the said tab i.e. Rs. 16,750/- and also shall have to pay Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and for deceiving the complainant sell such a defect outdated tab to the complainant.
Op no.2 is hereby directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 16,750/- (refund amount or price of the Tab) plus Rs. 10,000/- litigation cost plus Rs. 10,000/- compensation, i.e. in total Rs. 36,750/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal interest at the rate Rs. 200 per day shall be assessed against the op and till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that op no.2 is unwilling to comply the order, in that case, penal action shall be started and for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
