::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
AT KALABURAGI::
C.C. No. 56/2015
Date of filing: 03/08/2015
Date of disposal: 25/01/2017
P R E S E N T:- (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President (Addl. Charge).
(2) Shri. Nagashetty Gandage,
M.Com.LL.B.,(Spl)
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Sharanabasava S/o Mallikarjun Madole,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Govt. Servant,
R/o. Plot No.13, Veerabhadreshwar Nagar,
Kalaburagi.
(By Sri V.R.Mahajan, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S 1) The Manager,
HCL Service Limited,
(A Subsidiary of HCL Infosystem Ltd.,)
No.197/A, Binnimangala II Stage,
Indira Nagar, Bangalore-38.
2) The Manager,
Univer Cell Shop (The Mobile Expert),
Super Market, Opp: Kamat Hotel,
Kalaburagi- 585 101.
(OP-1 by Sri C.S.Kalaburagi Adv.)
(OP-2 –Dismissed)
:: J UD G M E N T : :
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps, by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986 and claiming replacement of his defective purchased Tablet with new one and also to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of proceedings together with interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint.
2. The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:
The complainant had purchased the HCL Tablet, Model No. HCL MR VI, IMEI No.911335800461103 on 09-03-2014, from the O.P.2, which is manufactured by the O.P.1.
After purchase of the said Tablet, the complainant used it for only 15 days, thereafter it was started giving trouble, so the complainant got repaired the same through service centre for many times, finally the service centre was closed, so the complainant handed over the said Tablet for repair to the O.P.2, but they failed to repair the same and said defective Tablet was not returned to the complainant. Hence the complainant issued legal notice to the O.P.s for replacement of the new Tablet, the O.P.s did not replace the same. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming direction to the O.P.s to replace the said defective Tablet and pay the compensation as stated above.
The Opponent-1 entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, has filed elaborate version, denied all the allegations of the complainant as a whole. Notice sent to O.P.2 returned as addressee left, hence the complaint against the O.P.2 dismissed. The O.P.1 has submitted in the version that the complainant had purchased the Tablet from the O.P.s and it was having some defect and same was rectified and handed over to the complainant with instruction to use the tablet properly. However the complainant again brought the said tablet for reoccurrence of the problem in the Tablet. It is further submitted that the Tablet was ready after rectification by replacing the battery on 21-01-2015, and same was informed to the complainant to collect it from the O.P.1, but the complainant has not approached to take delivery of the item. Therefore there is no any deficiency in the service of the O.P.1, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also evidence affidavits of both sides and written arguments of complainant justifying their respective stands.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-
- Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
- What order?
7. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
1. In the affirmative.
2. As per final orders owing to the following:
:: REASONS ::
8.Point No.1 :- Both sides are in agreement about the purchase and recurrent defects in the Tablet purchased by the complainant, from the copy of the job card available on record (Ex.P.3), it is evident that, factually the Table was handed over for repair to the service centre of the O.P.1’s Company, four times within the first year of purchase i.e., within the warranty period. At present the same is retained with the opponents. Notwithstanding the claim of the O.P.No.1 that the Tablet was repaired and intimation to that effect was given on 21.01.2015 to the complainant, we did not see a scrap of paper in the record substantiating such a claim of the Opponents. We also observe another amazing aspect that the legal notice from the complainant was sent on 27.02.2015. From the versions of the O.P.No.1, nowhere it is mentioned that, adequate reply was ever sent to the complainant or his counsel informing the fact of appropriate restoration of the gadget to the desired level. This goes to prove that, the O.P.s’ claim is hollow and baseless. The doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitor squarely applies in the case. We therefore hold that the O.P.No.1 guilty on account of deficiency of service and proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
The complaint is allowed in part.
The O.P.No.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.8,000/- received against supply of the Tablet together with interest @ 12% p.a., calculated from the date of last delivery i.e., 31-12-2014 for repairs till the date of realisation.
The O.P.No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation of inconveniences and mental agonies undergone by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses.
Four weeks’ time granted to comply this order.
Office to provide free copies to the litigants.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 25th day January-2017)
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Nagashetty G. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
List of witnesses produced by the complainant
- PW-1 Sharanabasappa S/o Mallikarjun Madole (Complainant).
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P1-Copy of legal notice, dtd:27-2-2015.
- Ex.P2- Copy of Tax Invoice, dtd:09-03-2014.
- Ex.P3- Copy of Service Job Card, dtd:31-12-2014..
- Ex.P4- Original Postal receipt of O.P.1.
- Ex.P5- Original Acknowledgment form.
- Ex.P.6-Original Postal receipt of R.P.A.D. letter sent to O.P.No.2 & Original postal A.D. form pertaining to O.P.No.2.
List of witnesses examined by the Opponent/s:
RW-1- Prabhakar Tiwari, Dy. Manager Legal in HCL Info-systems Ltd.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Nagashetty G.., Sri. Jagannath Prasad,
Member. President.
SAB
