Haryana

Panchkula

CC/33/2015

SUKHBIR SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER,HCL TOUCH. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	33 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	25.08.2015

                                                                                            

Sukhbir Singh, 166, Industrial Area-1, Panchkula, Haryana-134113.

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Manager, HCL Touch (Authorized Service Centre), SCO 66-67, 2^nd Floor, Near Taj Hotel, Sector 17A, Chandigarh-160017.
2. The Manager, NSI Infinium Global Pvt. Ltd., 4612/17, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002.
3. The Managing Director, NSI Infinium Global Pvt. Ltd., 841, Near YMCA Club, Sarkhej Gandhi Nagar Highway, Post Jivraj Park, Ahmedabad, Gujrat-380051.
4. The Managing Director, HCL Infosystems Ltd., 806, Siddharth96, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

              Mr.Arjun Grover, Adv., for the Ops No.1 and 4.

              None for the OP No.2. 

              Op No.3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

 

1. The complaint has filed by the complainant with the averments that he purchased HCL ME Tablet connect 3G 2.0, silver colour, 4 gb from infibeam.com on 26.08.2013 vide order ID No.11592285/20606935 via online for a sum of Rs.11,525/- (Annexure C-1) and received the tablet on 31.03.2014. After a few months of its use, the tablet started giving problem in network, camera as well as touch. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and submitted the tablet on 27.10.2014 but the problem was not resolved. The complainant approached the OP No.1 to remove the defect in tablet but the problem was still there. The complainant sent many emails (Annexure C-3) to the Ops to resolve the defects in tablet but no positive steps were taken by them. The OP No.1 asked the complainant to pay Rs.3800/- for repair of Tablet but the complainant refused the same. The complainant requested the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.11,525/- but to no avail. The complainant also sent a letter dated 04.01.2014 to the Ops but he found no response. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 4 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objection and submitted that the complainant purchased the Tablet on 28.08.2013 with warranty of one year which was valid uptill 25.08.2014. It is submitted that on 27.10.2014, the complainant approached the Ops with a problem of touch screen damaged and non-warranty job sheet No.2302008491 dated 27.10.2014 was issued to him. It is submitted that at the time of problem in tablet, it was out of warranty period and an estimate of Rs.3800/- was given to him. It is submitted that after going through the terms and conditions mentioned in the job sheet, the complainant accepted and signed the same. It is submitted that on the approval of complainant, touch was repaired on 27.10.2014 and after further checking, it was found that there was a charging problem in Tablet and another complaint No.84000459272 dated 29.10.2014 on account of problem in PCB was granted. After that, PCB was changed on 29.10.2014. It is submitted that after repairing the Tablet, the complainant was informed to collect the tablet but the complainant refused to collect the same and demanded refund of the amount paid at the time of purchase. It is submitted that on 03.03.2015, the Op No.1 sent a letter to the complainant through courier for collecting the Tablet but the complainant did not turn up whereby the complainant refused to collect the tablet through email dated 10.03.2015 and demanded refund/replacement of the tablet. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 & 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The Op No.2 has filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.2 is the online seller of branded, non-branded or manufactured products through its website Infibeam.com on “AS IS” basis (“AS IS” basis means WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER “EXPRESS OR IMPLIED). It is submitted that the OP No.2 had always provided support and assistance to the complainant regarding products purchased from the Op’s website. It is submitted that Op No.2 is a channeled company and the process right from order placing to the delivery are under the strict surveillance. It is submitted that Op No.2 displays products brand on its website on the basis of information content received by the manufacturer/vendor of the product and displayed the HCL ME Tablet connect 3G 2.0, 4 GB on the basis of material received from the manufacturer on AS IS Basis. It is submitted that the OP No.2 did not bear any responsibility of accuracy, operative and functionality of the product as the warranty and guarantee on the product was ensured by the manufacturer i.e. OP No.4. It is submitted that the complainant raised the issues regarding repair & maintenance and the OP No.1 had repaired the tablet but inspite of repeated requests of complainant, the Op No.1 had not issued any DOA certificate. It is submitted that the complainant had never informed the OP No.2 about the manufacturing defect in the product. It is denied that after repair, the complainant had received the tablet from the Op No.2. It is denied that the complainant had served notice or letter to the Ops No.2 and 3. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2015.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A aongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 and 4 have tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and R1/4A and R1/5 and closed the evidence. The OP No.2 had never appeared before this Forum and did not file any evidence on its behalf despite availing many opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the Op No.2 closed by court order vide order dated 08.06.2015.  
6. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 4 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased HCL ME Tablet connect 3G 2.0, silver colour, 4 gb online from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.11,525/- vide invoice dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure C-1).
8. The complainant has submitted that the product was received by him on 31.03.2014 (Annexure C-1) and he requested vide email dated 06.04.2014 to extend the warranty period of the abovesaid tablet stating that he received the tablet on 31.03.2014. The tablet was deposited with the service center i.e. Op No.1 on 27.10.2014 for repair vide job sheet Annexure C-2 and demanded Rs.3800/-. The Op No.1 asked the complainant to send the scanned copy of the invoice mentioning the serial number so that they can provide him with necessary resolution vide email dated 09.04.2014. In response to their email dated 09.04.2014, the complainant informed vide email dated 12.04.2014 that his old complaint No.8400367721 against HCL Tablet Serial No.0613YCC3G2DIT00683 and the new HCL Tablet Serial No.0813YCC3G2D5T01298 has same problem. The Op No.1 requested the complainant to visit their service center and submit the tablet so that the same can be diagnosed technically by their field team and the issue can be resolved at the earliest. The complainant sent the scanned copy of invoice through email dated 13.04.2014 to the Op No.1. The Op No.1 intimated to the complainant that the warranty of his tablet has been extended for additional 84 days vide their email dated 16.04.2014. The complainant informed the Op No.1 vide email dated 03.09.2014 that he has purchased a HCL Tablet 3G No.0613YCC3G2DIT00683 on 26.08.2013 and after some time the said tablet had the network problem and battery problem and his service complaint number was 8400367721. The Op No.1 has replaced his tablet and he received the new tablet HCL 3G No. 0813YCC3G2DIT01298 on 31.03.2014 but the same problem is repeated in the abovesaid tablet. On 06.06.2014, the tablet was submitted to the customer service center at Chandigarh. On 23.11.2014, the complainant requested the Op No.1 to refund the price. The complainant has further submitted that the tablet is lying with the Ops.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 4 submitted that the tablet was purchased on 26.08.2013 with warranty of one year which was valid upto 25.08.2014. The complainant approached the Ops on 27.10.2014 with a problem of touch screen damaged and non-warranty job sheet No.2302008491 dated 27.10.2014 was issued to him. He further submitted that the tablet was out of warranty period and an estimate of Rs.3800/- was given to him. The tablet was repaired on 27.10.2014 but after further checking, it was found that there was a charging problem in tablet and another complaint No.84000459272 dated 29.10.2014 on account of problem in PCB was granted. The PCB was changed on 29.10.2014 and complainant was informed to collect the tablet but the complainant refused to collect the same and demanded refund of the amount of the tablet paid by him.
10. From the above, it reveals that the complainant purchased a tablet on 26.08.2013 and the same was replaced being defective with a new tablet serial No.0813YCCC3G2DIT01298 which was received by the complainant on 31.03.2014. Hence, the warranty for one year should be started from 31.03.2014 and not from 26.08.2013. Since the complainant deposited the tablet with the service center on 27.10.2014 as admitted by the Ops No.1 and 4 in their written statement stating that the tablet was out of warranty period and they demanded Rs.3800/- for the repair of the abovesaid tablet which is not tenable as the warranty period of replaced tablet serial No. 0813YCCC3G2DIT01298 was to be expired on 30.03.2015. The Ops No.1 & 4 also admitted that there was a problem of touch which was repaired on 27.10.2014 and PCB was granted on 29.10.2014 which is a major part of the tablets and mobile phones.
11. In view of the above, the complainant was facing problem in the tablet during the warranty period and Ops replaced the PCB which is a major part of the tablets and mobile phones. In view of the abovesaid observation, the present complaint of the complainant is succeeded and the Ops are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.11,525/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of purchase to till realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for compensation as mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

25.08.2015           S.P.ATTRI       ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                             MEMBER        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT