BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 382/2012 Filed on 31.10.2012
Dated : 19.09.2013
Complainant :
Ravikrishnan. N.R, Advocate, 101 # N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Party in person)
Opposite party :
The Managing Director, M/s Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd., 4/5, Shubhada, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 003.
This C.C having been heard on 03.09.2013, the Forum on 19.09.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant is an advocate practicing in Trivandrum District Court Centre, that complainant placed an order for the purchase of Wespro PC tablet manufactured by the opposite party, M.D, M/s Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai through online shopping site for an amount of Rs. 5,499/-, that the product was delivered to the complainant on 30.06.2012 vide courier service, that the said product received by the complainant was a non-working piece, that complainant contacted the shopping site and registered a complaint and as per the direction of the opposite party complainant sent the product back to the opposite party on 10.07.2012, thereupon opposite party delivered another piece to the complainant on 18.07.2012, that complainant used the same for only 3 months and thereafter the same was found not working on 18.10.2012. When contacted the opposite party, it was surprised to note that there was no such service centre for the opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram, that opposite party had given a false address with no service centre at Trivandrum. The said tablet became dead due to the manufacturing defect of the same. Opposite party is guilty of selling defective tablet to the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to provide the complainant with a defect free printer of the same make or to allow the complainant to realize the amount of Rs. 5,499/- from the opposite party being the price of the printer along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party, on service of notice, sent version by post stating that customer had complaint about the non-working tablet in the month of June 2012 and was resent to Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd. in the month of July 2012, that working replacement of the same product was resent to the customer on 18.07.2012, but the tablet after usage of 3 months again started having same problem, that customer satisfaction is utmost important and hence opposite party is agreeing to take back the product and refund the product value to the customer paid by him, that customer can send his product to Wespro warehouse for refund. The address of Wespro warehouse is mentioned on the last page of manual provided with the product. Customer can either call Wespro Digital Pvt. Ltd or homeshop 18 for his refund status.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether complainant is entitled to get a defect free printer of the same make or in the alternative whether complainant is entitled for refund of the price of the tablet?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Ext. P1 to P3. Opposite party has never filed proof affidavit or any documents.
Points (i) to (iii):- Complainant has led evidence by way of proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3. Opposite party has never filed proof affidavit nor challenged the affidavit filed by the complainant, thereby the affidavit filed by the complainant deserves to be admitted as it remains uncontroverted. Opposite party sent reply to this Forum and to the complainant admitting their responsibility in this matter. Admittedly, by Ext. P1 opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 5,499/- from the complainant towards the net price of Wespro S714 7 tablet with 3 G compatibility via USB. Opposite party admitted the defect and initially replaced the defective tablet with a new defect free one and after the usage of the same for 3 months, the tablet again started having the same problem. According to complainant, the problem found was that the tablet was not able to be switched on and the same trouble was found when the tablet was delivered for the first time. According to complainant from the manual, it is found that the opposite party company is having its service centre at Kaithamukku. But on enquiry, it was surprised to note that there was no such service centre at Kaithamukku. Since opposite party has admitted in the version that they are agreeing to take back the product and refund the product price to the customer, no further evidence is required to show that the product supplied by the opposite party is having defects. As defect is admitted by the opposite party, complainant is entitled to get the said product replaced with a new one of the same make. That even after repeated communications by the complainant to the opposite party, no action was taken by the opposite party to redress the grievance of the complainant. No purpose will be served if we direct the opposite party to replace the same after a lapse of more than one year. In view of the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that justice will be well met if we direct opposite party to refund Rs. 5,499/- towards the product price to the customer/complainant. The action of the opposite party in not replacing the defective tablet with new one or in not rectifying the defective one within reasonable time or in not refunding the product price to the customer in time would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which complainant is entitled to compensation which we fix at Rs. 2,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 5,499/- to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 5,499/- will carry interest @ 8% from the date of this order. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 19th day of September 2013.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 382/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of delivery chalan of the tablet.
P2 - Copy of letter dated 28.05.2013 issued by complainant to
opposite party with acknowledgement card.
P3 - Postal receipt
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
