1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one PENTA TABLET from Home Shop 18 and after some time the battery did not give proper backup and the touch screen was broken due to swelling of the battery during warranty period. It is submitted that he contacted Home Shop 18 for its repair who forwarded the grievance to Penta Company and the said Company gave contact number of Penta local service Centre at Cuttack (OP.2). On contact, the OP.2, it advised the complainant to send the Tablet along with Rs.3500/- towards repair charges and the complainant tendered Rs.3500/- along with the Tablet to OP.2 on 08.08.15 on proper receipt but the OP.2 is not returning the Tablet with repair in spite of several personal and telephonic requests. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to sent the repaired Tablet and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 refused to receive the Regd. Notice issued from the Forum and hence due to such refusal the notice is held sufficient on OP.1. In spite of valid notice, the OP.2 on being served neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. We have perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.
4. In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice dt.16.4.2014 issued by PO.1 towards sale of Penta Tablet for Rs.6999/- to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the battery did not give proper backup and touch screen was broken due to swelling of the battery within warranty period but it was seen that the complainant has not stated that he has approached the ASC of the product within the warranty period. However, on approach the OP.2 as received the set as out of warranty case. In the service job sheet the OP.2 has mentioned the defect as “TP Broken/battery damaged” and estimated the repair cost at Rs.3500/-. It is also found from the record that the complainant has paid Rs.3500/- to OP.2 towards repair charges on 08.08.2015. It is further the case of the complainant that the OP.2 in spite of several approaches did not return the repaired set to him.
5. The OP.1 in this case refused to receive the notice issued by the Forum. As it is the out of warranty case, the complainant has to avail paid service from the Ops. The OP.1 has advised the complainant to approach the ASC of the product rightly and hence we do not find any fault on the part of the OP.1. The OP.2 after receipt of cost of the repair is duty bound to get the device repaired and handover to the complainant in time but it did not do so. In absence of counter and participation of OP.2 we failed to know the reasons for non delivery of repaired device to the complainant.
6. The complainant as per demand of OP.2 has paid the cost of repair as case was out of warranty but non return of device after repair by OP.2 definitely leads to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.2. As the complainant has not received his device after a lapse of more than 16 months, in our view, he is entitled to get back the cost of the device from OP.2. Further due to such inaction of the OP.2 the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
7. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to return the cost of the Tablet at Rs.6999/- along with Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the cost of the device will certainly carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.
(to dict.)
