CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:15/12/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/199/2016
A.R.Unnikrishnan,
Arubin House, Edathara,
Palakkad – 678 611. : Complainant
(Adv.Rohini.R)
Vs
The Manager, : Opposite party
Naaptol Service Warehouse,
Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd.,
C/o 13PL Solutions Old No.B.98,
New No.B-1331, New Ashok Nagar,
Near Pandey Medicos,
New Delhi – 110 096.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The complaint in brief is as follows.
The complainant purchased a “Data Wind Calling Tablet With Keyboard” vide order No.18771356 and invoice No.847520/AP/0166709/2015-16 dated.December 18th, 2015 for Rs.4,999/- from the opposite party. According to the complainant, the article was defective and not working properly. Hence, he returned the product to Naaptol Delhi Office on 27.07.2016 and till date no satisfactory reply was received from the opposite party. Complainant pleads that this amounts to clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and consequently complainant suffered much mental agony and hardship. Hence, complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and to direct the opposite party to return a working tablet.
Complaint was admitted and notice was sent to opposite party to enter appearance and file version which opposite party did. In the version, opposite party contended that the complaint is misconceived in law and in facts and hence it is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Opposite party also states that all the averments and allegations made in the complaint are denied except those specifically admitted. According to the opposite party, complainant placed an order for the product, namely “data wind calling tablet with keyboard” through this opposite party and paid Rs.4,999/- to the vendor, namely “Ak Edu Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Rajoukri” by way of cash on delivery. According to the opposite party, the product which was delivered to the complainant was of standard, good quality and branded product. The product was a fresh mercantile piece in working condition and the product shown in the advertisement was delivered to the complainant and the same carries one year manufacturer guarantee. Further opposite party contends that when the complainant lodged his 1st complaint to the customer care executives of this opposite party, on receipt of the complaint, the customer care executives offered to the complainant the contact number and detailed address of the service centre. When the complainant informed the customer care executive that the issue had not been solved by the service centre, immediately, the opposite party provided him another remedy, namely, replacement and explained to him the RPP procedure (Reverse Pick up Procedure). Then, after passing of more than 30 days the complainant sent the said product on 30.04.2016 to the Central Warehouse and received the replaced product in a few days i.e on 17.05.2016, after the vendor received the product on 06.05.2016. The complainant again complained about the replaced product on 29.06.2016 on which the customer care executive offered him the contact No.and detailed address of the service centre, but complainant was not ready to visit the service centre and the opposite party once again provided the complainant with the remedy of replacement and accordingly requested him to send back the product for this process. It is also further contended by the opposite party that till date the defective product has not been delivered to the seller and on enquiry about the product in the post office, the Postal Officer told them that the product was delivered to the Naptol Company but the complainant has not given proof of delivery asked for by the opposite party. Regarding compensation demanded by the complainant, according to opposite party, it is illegal, unjust and against the principle of natural justice. Hence opposite party prays that they have discharged their duties and are not liable to pay any damages or compensation or interest or cost claimed by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence, according to them, complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits, but manufacturer has not produced chief affidavit. From the part of the complainant Exts.A1 and A2 series were marked. Complainant also filed notes and was heard. From the side of opposite party no documents were filed and marked.
In this case the following issues come up for consideration:
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2)If so, reliefs and cost ?
Issues 1&2
In this case complainant purchased a “data wind calling tablet with keyboard” for Rs.4,999/- as per Ext.A1 which indicates details regarding purchase of the product by the complainant from the opposite parties, namely, order no, invoice no, name of seller, name of customer etc. According to the complainant the article was defective, not properly working and hence the said article was repaired by the opposite party. But the defects of the disputed product could not be cured even after repair, and hence, the same product was replaced by a fresh product by the opposite party. But the replaced product also had the same defect and was not properly working and therefore complainant sent back the defective replaced article to Naptol company, Delhi on 27.07.2016. To the enquiry made by the complainant with the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Palakkad, he gave a reply along with delivery slip marked as Ext.A2 series which informed the complainant that the disputed article was delivered on 03.08.2016 to opposite party company for replacement. Since no information regarding the product and no satisfactory reply from the opposite party was received, this complaint was filed to this Hon’ble Forum praying for compensation for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. In their version opposite party contends that three remedies are provided to the complainant namely, repair, replacement and refund. Opposite party also contends that fresh piece of the said product was provided to the complainant with one year manufacturer warranty. On receiving complaint from the complainant the said article was repaired by the opposite party. When the product again showed complaints it was replaced by a fresh product on 17.05.2016. When the complainant again complained about the replaced fresh product, the opposite party offered to the complainant the repair remedy and when he was not ready for that offer, replacement remedy was offered to him, contended by the opposite party. Further the complainant was asked to send the defective article and proof of delivery of the article. According to the opposite party. although the complainant informed the opposite party of having sent the defective product by postal services, no proof of delivery was sent to opposite party so far. Hence, opposite party denies allegations of deficiency in service on their part.
From the documents and affidavits produced before the Forum, it is clear that the disputed product has carried one year manufacturer warranty. Further, although the complainant has promptly returned to opposite party company and delivered to them the disputed product for replacement, it is seen that the opposite party company has not yet given to the complainant a properly working fresh tablet despite the fact that the disputed product carries one year manufacturer warranty which has not expired at the time of filing this complaint. Hence, we view that the opposite party is seen to have committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
The opposite party company is directed to supply the complainant with a properly working fresh Data Wind Calling Tablet With Keyboard. If not possible, opposite party company is directed to refund the purchase price of the disputed product of Rs.4,999/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred and ninety only); further the opposite party company is also ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by way of compensation for mental agony suffered by him together with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
This Order shall be executed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to receive from the opposite party interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of December 2017. Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Purchase bill of “data wind calling tablet with keyboard” dated.18.12.2015
Ext.A2 series - Letter dated.09.12.2016 sent by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Palakkad
Division, Department of Posts, India, along with delivery slip
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/-
