Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum, passed in the complaint case bearing no. CC/169/2016, this Appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The dispute revolves around a tablet that the Respondent No. 1 purchased through the Respondent No. 4 being manufactured by the Respondent Nos. 2&3.  Allegedly, following updation of ‘Over the Air (OTA)’ software being released by the Respondent Nos. 2&3, the Respondent No. 1 noticed severe deterioration in the picture quality of her tablet.  Since repeated correspondence and even servicing of the same proved futile, the complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

Following contested hearing, the case was decided in favour of the Respondent No. 1.

Appearing on behalf of the Appellant, it was argued by its Ld. Advocate that the Appellant reimaged/formatted the tablet as per the specific instruction of the Respondent Nos. 2&3 and delivered the tablet to the Respondent No. 1 with specific remark, “awaiting for the latest OTA update”.  Since such OTA update was released by the manufacturer, the Ld. Advocate claimed, Appellant had got nothing to do in this regard.  Claiming that the Appellant discharged its duties  strictly as per the rules and instructions of the Respondent Nos. 2&3, the Ld. Advocate prayed for abdicating it from the liability of paying cost to the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the impugned order.

Heard other parties also and gone through the material on record carefully.

It is quite evident from the petition of complaint itself that the problem with the tablet developed following updation of the OTA being released by the Respondent Nos. 2&3 and though the Appellant tried to resolve the problem, it did not succeed in its endeavour and accordingly, returned the tablet to the Respondent No. 1.  Since the problem cropped up post updation of the software developed by the Respondent Nos. 2&3, in our considered opinion, it was totally unfair to hold the Appellant responsible for the same.

Accordingly, we feel that the Appellant deserves due relief, as prayed for.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant need not pay any amount to the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the impugned order.