BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

   Consumer Complaint No  271 of 2015

Date of Institution:28.4.2015

Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

Ms. Bhavya Khanna D/o Sh. Anil Khanna, Resident of H.No. 13, IMA Colony, Akash Avenue, Opposite Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park , Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. The Authorized Signatory, Tarash Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Plot No. 5, Sector 27, Near SSR Corporate Tower, Faridabad, Haryana 121003
2. The Authorized Signatory, Manager Customer Support, PANTEL Technologies Pvt. Ltd., E-33, Sector 63, Noida, UP 201301, India
3. The Authorized Signatory, Spice Care Centre, Cell Point, Shop No. 201,202,Sunrise Plaza, IInd Floor, Cooper Road, Nr.Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Vishal Khanna,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party No.3       : Sh. Sanjeet Singh,Advocate

               For opposite parties No.1 & 2 :  Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Bhavya Khanna under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased a handset Tablet model Penta Dual from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 on 29.7.2014 against retail invoice dated 30.7.2014 via channel Homeshop-18 . According to the complainant soon after sometime the said Tablet started creating problem in its functioning. Complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2 on  7.8.2014  and disclosed the defect i.e. software problem and touch problem and complaint number 117877 to this effect was given to the brother of the complainant , but nobody visited on behalf of the company to check the Tablet. Again on 11.10.2014 complainant alongwith her brother lodged complaint before opposite party No.3 and service job sheet to this effect was issued to the complainant  and they also suggested the complainant to change  the touch of said Tablet for which the complainant had  to pay Rs. 2350/-. Out of which complainant paid Rs. 1000/- in advance and remained amount was to be paid  on return the Tablet and they assured the brother of the complainant that they will handover the said Tablet within 30 days after removing its problem. But opposite party No.3 did not return the said Tablet . Complainant made number of visits to opposite party No.3, but with no response. After number of visits made by the complainant to opposite party No.3, they finally returned the said Tablet to the brother of the complainant on 29.1.2015 but the said Tablet was still in same position. On the same day i.e.on 29.1.2015 brother of the complainant submitted the said Tablet before opposite party No.3 to get the touch repaired and another job sheet to this effect was issued to the brother of the complainant vide No. PENSER00130350. Opposite party No.3 again assured that the Tablet will be returned as soon as possible but failed to give any fix date. Since then the Tablet has not been repaired nor returned the same. Complainant also served legal notice dated 16.3.2015 upon the opposite parties  to return the Tablet with compensation but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50000/- as compensation on account of loss of business and reputation.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 11.10.2014 with Touch Break Panel  and before issue the job sheet to the complainant, the facts were clearly narrated to the complainant that it will take maximum 20 to 25 days or may be more and whenever the set will come back from the company, the same shall be delivered to the complainant. With the consent of the complainant the Tablet was sent to L-4 for change of its Touch panel. The said Tablet was received back after one month and the same was handed over to the complainant. However, the complainant again approached opposite party No.3 service centre for the same problem on 29.1.2015 vide job sheet No. 130350 . Again the same Tablet was sent to the company for further checking and inspection. The said Tablet came back from the company after 20 days. The complainant was called to pack up the Tablet. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 but refused to take the Tablet and demanded either the new one of same make and model or to refund the entire amount of the said Tablet. Complainant was told that the set could be replaced if there is any manufacturing problem and if the same problem is not occurred then as per law the Tablet neither be replaced nor the refund of the said Tab. But the complainant was not ready to listen the request of the opposite party No.3. While denying & controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded  against ex-parte vide order dated 8.6.2015. Opposite party No.2 also did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated  22.7.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9.
5. Opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sahil Arora Ex.OP3/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the  complainant and opposite party No.3 , arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  complainant and opposite party No.3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Tablet handset model Penta Dual of BSNL from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 on 29.7.2014 against invoice Ex.C-7 dated  30.7.2014 via channel Homeshop-18.The complainant submitted that after sometime the said Tablet started creating problem in its functioning. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2 on 7.8.2014 through mobile regarding software problem and touch problem in the said Tablet hand set and the opposite party gave complaint No. 117877. But no person visited to the complainant from the company to rectify the problem in the said Tablet. Again on 11.10.2014 , complainant alongwith her brother lodged second complaint to opposite party No.3  by personally visiting the office of opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 11.10.2014 Ex.C-9. Opposite party No.3 suggested the complainant to change the touch of said Tablet for which the complainant had to pay Rs. 2350/-. Out of which the complainant paid Rs. 1000/- in advance and the remaining amount was to be paid on the receiving of Tablet as is evident from this job sheet Ex.C-9. Opposite party No.3 assured that they will hand over the said Tablet to the complainant after rectifying its defects within 30 days. After 30 days, the complainant and her brother contacted opposite party No.3 through mobile but no response was given by opposite party No.3. Thereafter the complainant and her brother personally visited the opposite party No.3  but opposite party No.3 failed to remove the problems in the Tablet and they finally returned the said Tablet to the brother of the complainant on 29.1.2015. But the said Tablet was suffering from some problems. The brother of the complainant again handed over the said Tablet to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 issued another job sheet to this effect Ex.C-6 in which the opposite party No.3 has admitted that it is a repeated complaint case which has hardware issue problem and touch problem, the physical condition of the mobile was OK with no scratches. Thereafter opposite party could not repair the Tablet hand set of the complainant  nor 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 qua the complainant.
8. Whereas case of opposite party No.3 is that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 11.10.2014 with Touch Break Panel. Opposite party No.3 issued job sheet Ex.C-9 in this regard and the facts were clearly narrated to the complainant that it will take maximum 20 to 25 days or may be more and whenever the set will come back from the company, the same shall be delivered to the complainant. With the consent of the complainant the Tablet was sent to L-4 for change of its Touch panel. The said Tablet was received back after one month and the same was handed over to the complainant. However, the complainant again approached opposite party No.3 service centre for the same problem on 29.1.2015 vide job sheet No. 130350 Ex.C-6. Again the same Tablet was sent to the company for further checking/inspection/repair. The said Tablet came back from the company after 20 days. The complainant was called to pick up the Tablet. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 but refused to take the Tablet. Counsel for the opposite party got recorded his statement in the Forum dated 22.7.2015 that  opposite party has replaced the Tablet of the complainant and the same is lying with opposite party No.3 and the complainant can collect the same. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Tablet handset of BSNL purchased by the complainant vide retail invoice dated  30.7.2014 Ex.C-7 became defective and the complainant handed over the same to opposite party No.3 vide job sheet Ex.C-9 dated 11.10.2014. Opposite party asked the complainant that they would charge Rs. 2350/-. The complainant paid Rs. 1000/- as advance and the balance amount of Rs. 1350/- was payable by the complainant to opposite party No.3 at the time of return of Tablet after repair by opposite party No.3 as is evident from job sheet Ex.C-9. But the opposite party could not repair the Tablet rather handed over the same to the brother of the complainant after a lapse of a period of more than one month. But the problem in the Tablet remained the same. The complainant handed over the Tablet to opposite party No.3 on 29.1.2015 vide job sheet No. 130350 Ex.C-6 in which the opposite party has admitted that it is a case of repeated problem having hardware issue problem and Touch problem. However, opposite party No.3 vide job sheet Ex.C-6 admitted that the physical condition of the Tablet is quite OK and there was no scratches on the Tablet. But opposite party No.3 failed to remove the problem in the Tablet rather opposite party No.3 offered to the complainant another repaired Tablet hand set in place of the Tablet of the complainant  and the complainant has refused to accept the said offer. The complainant also served legal notice dated 10.3.2015 Ex.C-2 through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 upon the opposite parties but in vain. All this fully proves that opposite party N.3 has failed to rectify the problem in the Tablet of the complainant and they have admitted that it is a case of hardware problem and repeated problem. So it stands fully proved on record that the Tablet of the complainant  is not repairable . As such the opposite parties are liable to replace the Tablet hand set with new one of same make and model.

10.     Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to replace the Tablet hand set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price  of the Tablet alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1000/- charged by them from the complainant vide job sheet Ex.C-9. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders 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.

10.12.2015                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member