THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 213 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.4.2015
Date of Decision : 10.09.2015
Ravneet Kaur daughter of S.Satvinder resident of House No. 4295, Kot Bhagat Singh, Gali No.3, Sultanwind Road,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Tarash Overseas Pvt.Ltd,Plot No.5, Sector 27, Near Sar Corporate Tower, Faridabad 121003 (Haryana) through its Director/Principal Officer
Cell Point (Authorized Service Centre), Shop No. 210-202, 2nd Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewall Bakery, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Incharge
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.1 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Ravneet Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased one BSNL Tabtop from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. TARA/14-15/04142 dated 10.4.2014 for Rs. 6999/- through online. After the purchase of the aforesaid Tabtop on 26.8.2014 it developed problem as it was not charging properly. The complainant lodged complaint on 26.8.2014 and handed over the same to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 for repair. Opposite party No.2 after repair returned the same to the complainant on 10.11.2014. Again the said Tabtop developed the same problem in January 2015. Complainant again lodged complaint and handed over the said Tabtop to opposite art No.2 in January 2015, who after repair returned the same to the complainant on 23.2.2015. Again the said Laptop developed charging problem on 26.2.2015 and handed over the set to opposite party No.2, who asked the complainant to collect the Tabtop after few days. Thereafter the complainant has been visiting the opposite party No.2 time and again to receive the set, but the opposite party No.2 is putting off the matter under one pretext or the other . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective Tabtop with new one or to return the price thereof i.e. Rs. 6999/- alongwith interest . Compensation of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.5.2015.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 after five months from the date of purchase on 7.9.2014 vide job sheet No. 121052 with charging problem and on 8.9.2014 the same Tab was dispatched to the company for further repairs and after twenty five days the said Tab was handed over to the complainant in OK conditions. It was submitted that after four months i.e. on 19.1.2015 complainant approached opposite party No.2 with charging problem. The said Tab was again repaired by the company and the same was returned to the complainant on 2.2.20-15 in Ok condition. Complainant again approached opposite party No.2 service centre on 26.2.2015 with charging problem. But at that time the complainant asked for new set or to refund the price of the same. The opposite party checked the said Tab and removed the defects ,but the complainant refused to take the same and demanded new set or refund of price of the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and the ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for opposite party No.2.
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 one BSNL Tabtop White from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 10.4.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 6999/- through online. The said Tabtop became defective and developed problem of charging. The complainant lodged complaint No. 121052 dated 26.8.2014 and handed over the Tabtop to opposite party No.2, authorized service centre for repair. However, opposite party No.2 issued job sheet dated 7.9.2014 Ex.C-3 . However, opposite party could not repair the Tabtop of the complainant and handed over another Tabtop to the complainant. But the said Tabtop again developed the same problem of charging in January 2015 and again the complainant handed over the said Tabtop to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 19.1.2015 Ex.C-5 and the opposite party handed over the said Tabtop to the complainant on 23.2.2015. But the said Tabtop was having the same charging problem and the complainant again handed over the said Tabtop to opposite party No.2 on 26.2.2015b vide job sheet Ex.C-4. Thereafter the opposite party neither handed over the original Tabtop to the complainant after repair nor the second Tabtop after repair to the complainant and the same are lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. Whereas case of opposite party No.2 is that opposite party No.2 has repaired the Taptop of the complainant, but the complainant has refused to take the same. Ld.counsel for opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased BSNL Tabtop in question from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 6999/- through online on 10.4.2014. The said Tabtop became defective and the complainant handed over the same to the opposite party and the opposite party issued job sheet dated 7.9.2014 Ex.C-3. Opposite party could not repair the original Tabtop of the complainant and they handed over another swapped Tabtop to the complainant on 10.11.2014. But the said Tabtop had also same problem of charging. Then the complainant again handed over the second Tabtop to the opposite party No.2, authorized service centre vide job sheet 19.1.2015 Ex.C-5. Opposite party No.2 returned the same to the complainant on 23.2.2015. But the said Tabtop had the same problem of charging. The complainant handed over the said Tabtop to opposite party No.2 on 26.2.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-4. But thereafter opposite party No.2 neither returned the original Tabtop to the complainant after repair nor the second one. Opposite party has submitted that they have repaired the Tabtop . Ld.counsel for the opposite party got recorded his statement on 25.6.2015 in the Fora that the Tabtop of the complainant has been repaired by the company and the complainant could collect the same , but the complainant refused to take the said repaired Tabtop on the ground that it was not original Tabtop of the complainant. All this shows that the opposite parties have failed to repair original Tabtop of the complainant and hand over the same to the complainant rather they have been giving another swapped Tabtop to the complainant which is not acceptable to the complainant . All this fully proves that the original Tabtop of the complainant is not repairable. As such the complainant is entitled either for the replacement of the Tabtop with new one of same make and model or for the refund of the amount of the Tabtop.
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to replace the Tabtop of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the Tabtop to the complainant i.e. amount of Rs. 6999/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order 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.
10.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
