Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/326/2015

M/s.N.Suresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s.Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Rajesh

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   14.08.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.11.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.326/2015

WEDNESDAY THIS  16^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

N. Suresh,

S/o. V. Nagamani,

No.37, Second Block,

Tamilnadu Police Housing Quarters,

St. Thomas Mount,

Chennai 600 016.                                         ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

1. The Manager,

M/s. Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

No.57, Vellalar Street,

Mount-Medavakkam Main Road,

Adambakkam,

Chennai.   

 

2. Mr.D.Udhaya Shankar,

M/s. Ocean Mobile Care,

No.78/91, Annai Indira Nagar

Railway Station Service Road,

Velachery,

Chennai 600 042.

 

3. The Manager,

M/s. Celkon Impex Pvt. Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, My Home Hub,

Madhapur, Hi-tech City,

Hyderabad 500 081.                                               ..Opposite parties

 

For the Complainant                 :    M/s. S.Rajesh & R. Balaji, Advocate.   

For the opposite parties 1  & 3   :    Exparte.

For the opposite party-2            :    Exparte (M/s. S.Manivelu)

    

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 2 & 3 only to seek direction to furnish a new Tablet Celkon-CT-820 instead of old one with compensation for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with cost as prayed for.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant purchased an Electronic appliance, a Tablet of model Celkon-CT-820 bearing IMEI No.911335550058588 from the 1^st opposite party on 25.2.2014 to the cost of  Rs.9,500/- including vat under an invoice receipt in No.18241, dated 25.2.2014.   At the time of sale it was informed by the 1^st opposite party that there is one year warranty for the said product.   After the purchase, within two months, he found some defects and problems in the product.  It is found that the camera of the Tablet was not functioning properly. Therefore, the complainant approached the seller the 1^st opposite party with a request to rectify the defect.  But instead of taking back the product for the rectification of the defect pointed out, the 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to approach the authorized service centre the 2^nd opposite party.  

2.     Immediately, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 15.4.2014 to rectify the defect.   The 2^nd opposite party received the Tablet and informed the complainant that the Tablet will be returned back within a period of one week duly rectified the defect.  But the 2^nd opposite party did not keep his word.   The appliance was not returned to the complainant.  Whenever, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party either in person or contacted through phone, the 2^nd opposite party used to give evasive answers regarding the return of the Tablet.  As the 2^nd opposite party failed to return the Tablet even after 35 days from the date of receipt for its rectification, the complainant sent a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party, dated 20.5.2014 demanding the return of the Tablet duly rectifying the defect.   On receipt  of the said legal notice only, the 2^nd opposite party returned the Tablet in a hurried manner without properly rectifying the defects pointed out.    Thereafter, he noticed that the problems were not fully rectified by the 2^nd opposite party and now the Tablet became worsen than before, as the Touch pad which is an important and essential component is also not working.  On finding out the above said further defects, the complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party on 21.11.2014 for rectification of the problems in the Tablet.  It would be more pertinent to mention here that all these defects and presentation of the product to the 2^nd opposite party for rectification were taken place within the warranty period of one year.   The 2^nd opposite party issued a receipt to the complainant and received the Tablet vide “Work order No.CM14B70510813 at 1.09 p.m. he mentioned the problem of the tablet as “Symptom code: Touch PAD not working”.  On this occasion also, the 2^nd opposite party requested one week time for the rectification and return of the Tablet. 

3.     That after one week, when he approached the 2^nd opposite party, it was informed that the condition of the Tablet is irreparable and the defect could not be rectified.  It is also informed by the 2^nd opposite party that suitable action will be taken to replace a new one.    In trust on the words of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant made several visits to the premises of the 2^nd opposite party and enquired about the return of rectified product or the new one.   Inspite of more than 25 visits to the service centre, the complainant was not able to receive any convincing reply from the 2^nd opposite party.   Further, the complainant has also made several attempts to contact the 2^nd opposite party through his phone numbers 9884090721 and 044-2047771 but all were went in futile.    Till date, the complainant is not received the Tablet.   The act of the 2^nd opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Tablet and he is also bound to return the new one to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.   

4.     Inspite of notice served to the opposite parties 1 to 3,  they did not turn up before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.

5.     At the outset,  in order to prove the allegation made the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked. 

6.      At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is:

1.   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite     parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

7.       Written arguments submitted by the complainant and also adduced forum arguments.    Though opposite parties-1 to 3 remained exparte, this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials.

8.      POINTS NO.1     

According to the case of the complainant is that after purchase of the Tablet of model Celkon-CT-820 from the opposite party-1 and during use of the tablet for some times, he noticed some defects in the product and immediately approached opposite party-2 as advised by opposite party-1 to rectify the defect and in turn on receipt of the said product by the opposite party-2 and issued  work order.   But in spite of several attempts made by the complainant the opposite party-2 neither rectify the defects nor to replace the new Tablet till date and therefore the complainant was compelled to file this compliant.   In such circumstances it is needless to say that the complainant should prove the averments made in the complaint against the opposite parties by means of relevant and consistent evidence. 

9.       At this juncture, on careful perusal of the averments of the complaint and the proof affidavit submitted by the complainant for his evidence, it is learnt that the complainant had purchased the  Tablet of model Celkon-CT-820 from the opposite party-1 on 25.2.2014 for a sum of Rs.9500/- including vat.   The invoice cum delivery challan is marked as Ex.A1 and warranty card is marked as Ex.A2.  It is further averred that within two months from the date of purchase, the complainant found some defects and problems in that product and immediately the complainant approached the opposite party-1 to rectify the defects and in turn the opposite party-1 advised the complainant to approach the opposite party-2 who is the authorized service centre.  Then, the complainant had approached the opposite party-2 on 15.4.2014 to rectify the defect and the same was rectified by the opposite party-2 and informed that the complainant that the Tablet will be returned back within a period of one week but the opposite party-2 did not keep his word.   Thereafter even lapse of 35 days  the opposite party-2 failed to attend the problem and therefore the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.5.2014 to the opposite party-2 and then only the opposite party-2 returned the Tablet in a hurried manner without properly rectifying the defects fully.  The legal notice marked as Ex.A3.  

10.     Further, on going through the proof affidavit, it is seen that again the complainant noticed that the problems were not fully rectified and therefore the complainant handed over the Tablet to the opposite party-2 for rectification and for that, the work order Ex.A4 was issued by the opposite party-2 on 21.11.2014 and informed by the opposite party-2 that the condition of the Tablet is irreparable and the defect could not be rectified and to take suitable action to replace the new one.     On believing the words of the opposite party-2, though the complainant is wandering  here and there for more than 25 visits and also made several attempts, the opposite party-2 has not come forward neither to rectify the defect nor to replace a new Tablet to till date.

11.     At this point of time, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the alleged Tablet Model Celkon-CT-820  and the same has been proved through Ex.A1.   Furthermore it is crystal clear from the warranty card Ex.A2, the period of defects occurred only within the warranty period.    Therefore,  it is clear that the opposite parties having bounden duty to rectify the defects as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card Ex.A2.   Such being so, the opposite party-2 has failed to do so.

12.     In such circumstances, on careful perusal of the averments made in the complaint, there is no material found to show that  there is any manufacturing defect in the said product and to prove the same no expert opinion obtained from any one of the competent authority and also not come forward to take any steps to obtain expert opinion through this person in respect of any naval defect.   Hence, there is no concrete evidence to claim replacement of new Tablet.  But at the same time there is consistent and cogent evidence to show that the opposite party-2 has failed to rectify the defects as pointed out the by complaint who is being the authorized service centre.   At the outset, though the receipt of notice the opposite parties have not come forward to disprove the evidence of the complainant submitted before this forum and thereby all the opposite parties remained exparte  and thereby there is no contra evidence against the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant.   Hence this forum can easily be drawn an adverse inference against the opposite parties.

 

13.     In light of the above facts  and the circumstances the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the side of opposite party-2 and thereby the opposite party-3 is also vicariously liable for the deficiency of service of the opposite party-2.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

14.    POINT NO.2: -

As per the findings arrived in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for the relief of replacement of new Tablet Celkon-CT-820  but at the same time the opposite party-2 is bound to rectify the defects of the alleged product Model Tablet Celkon-CT-820   in a proper manner, failing which the opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable to pay the cost price of the said Tablet of Rs.9,500/- with reasonable compensation and cost.   In respect of opposite party-1 no relief claimed by the complainant, and therefore no need to proceed further against opposite party-1.  Thus point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the opposite party-2 is directed to rectify the defects  pointed out in the said product namely Tablet Celkon-CT-820 in a proper manner within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the cost price of the said product to the tune of Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine thousand and five hundred only) and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship  to the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3 with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards litigation expense to the complainant.   Complaint against the opposite party-1 is dismissed.  

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  16th  day  of  November  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 25.2.2014  - Copy of Invoice of the 1st opposite party.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Warranty Card of the Tablet.

Ex.A3- 20.5.2014  - Copy of legal notice of the complainant with courier receipt.

Ex.A4- 21.11.2014         - Copy of work order receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

Opposite parties’ side documents:

.. Nil..      (Exparte)

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.