BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31ST May 2013
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.68/2013
(Admitted on 8.3.2013)
Mr.Ganesh Acharya,
Co. Prakash Acharya,
DR.No.23 3 270,
JR Shetty Compound,
Behind Cascia High School,
Marnamikatta, Mangaladevi,
Jeppu, Mangalore575 001.
D.K. Karnataka. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: Appeared in person)
VERSUS
Zinc Global Pvt. Ltd.,
63, 3 Floor, Room No.1 2,
Rajadhani Enclave, Vikasmarg,
Delhi. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party :Exparte)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defective goods against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that he had purchased a Zync tablet :ZyncZ930 and Zync keyboard as per Invoice No:ZYNC/Retail/2012-13/14167, supplier’s Ref: 5644601, Buyers order No:5644601 dated 24.12.2012 and received on 27.12.2012 through consignment note/courier receipt No.:59074211873 by online through Naptol. The complainant stated that, After 10 days of purchasing the device the same is not working due to non-functioning of the display and touch screen. And further stated that he was facing the problem of overheating of screen while charging and also using the device.
Further stated that, the tablet was used as per the instruction given in the ZYNC manual i.e. initial charging their device for 6 hrs thereafter every subsequent full charge and the above tablet is under warranty for one year.
Further it is stated that, discussed with ZYNC and Naptol customer care person regarding the problem. But they have told that they are charging Rs.3,250/- for repairing the device. It is stated that, the above said tablet gone out of order within the warranty period and the problem is not rectified and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.4,898/- paid by complainant along with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party. The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1 .
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr.Ganesh Acharya (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C10 were exhibited for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. Opposite parties not filed any affidavit nor filed any documents and placed exparte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Zync tablet :ZyncZ930 purchased by the complainant on 24.12.2012 from the opposite party suffers from any defect?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant one who appeared in person filed evidence on affidavit and produced Ex. C1 to 10 in support of his case, wherein, we find that, the Complainant has purchased one Zync tablet:ZyncZ930 along with Zync keyboard by placing a order on 24.12.2012 and received the above said electronic gadget on 27.12.2012 from the Opposite Party by courier paying Rs.4,599/- and shipping charge was Rs.299/-.
The allegation of the Complainant on affidavit that, he was facing the problem of overheating of screen while charging and also using the device and after purchasing of the device the same is not working due to non functioning the display and touch screen. It is stated that, the tablet was used as per the instruction given by them and the same is under warranty for one year. After noticing the above said problem, the Complainant lodged a complaint through email and also had phone conversation with the customer care person and lodged a complaint i.e. as per Ex.C1 , C3 to C7. But the customer care person told the Complainant that it is a problem with the home electrical supply. But it is stated by the Complainant that the very same power supply he is using for other electrical devices including mobile phone till now the Complainant not come across any kind of overheating problems. It is further stated in the affidavit that, the Opposite Party manager on 20.5.2013 over the telephonic conversation stated that he is ready to arrange to reverse pickup the product, change the screen and send the product as a free of cost but the product validity already vanishing since last six months due to their deficiency. It is expressed by the Complainant that, he has no sure about its quality even if the Opposite Party is rectifying the screen. It is stated that, the above said device is purchased for a sister’s education purpose and due to financial problem he could not go for the higher version products and contended that because of the poor quality in the product the Complainant was put to hardship and the defective product produced before this authority the same is marked as M.O.1.
However, we noted that, the Opposite Party inspite of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date shows their attitude towards the customer more particularly in case of like this nature, the service of the service provider is very much necessary. But in the instant case, we noticed that the entire allegations as well as documents produced by the Complainants are not rebutted by the Opposite Party, the unrebutted evidence which requires no further proof.
On perusing the affidavit filed by the Complainant as well as the defective product produced before this authority i.e. M.O.1 proved beyond doubt that the above said product sold by the Opposite Party in this case is not up to the quality and thereby the same is found defective within the warranty period, therefore, by considering the service of the Opposite Party in this case, we are declined to consider the replacement of the product but we are of the opinion that ordering for the refund of the amount will meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above reasons, we hold that, the Zync tablet electronic device sold by the Opposite Party is proved to be defective and the Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.4,599/- paid by the Complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- as damages for the inconvenience and the harassment caused to the Complainant by taking back the defective set i.e. M.O.1 produced before this authority. And also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party i.e. Zync Global Pvt. Ltd., represented by its authorized signatory shall refund Rs.4,599/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred ninety nine only) to the Complainant by taking back the defective Zync Tablet along with Zync Keyboard i.e. M.O.1. Further pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as damages and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st May 2013)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Ganesh Acharya – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – Mail conversation hardcopy.
Ex C2 – 24.12.2012: Retail invoice copy.
Ex C3 & C4 – 18.1.2013: Copy of legal notices sent to the Opposite party by the complainant.
Ex C5 – Acknowledgement receipts (2 Nos.).
Ex C6 – Copy of Warranty details.
Ex C7 – E-mail correspondences.
Ex C8 to C10 – Cash/credit memo’s of Zeal Enterprises (3 in No.s)
M.O. NO.1: Zync Tablet and keyboard accessories.
Court document:
Doc.No.1 : Postal Acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil –
Dated:31.5.2013 PRESIDENT
