This complaint coming for final hearing on 10-2-2016 in the presence of Sri T. Mohan Krishna, Advocate for complainant and respondents appeared as in persons and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents jointly and severally to refund an amount of ₹ 3,999/- being the costs of Tab with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase i.e. 2-9-2014 till realization, to pay ₹ 10,000/- towards deficiency of service and             ₹ 20,000/- for mental agony and ₹ 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.             The brief averments of the complaint are as follows.  Respondent No. 2 is the importer and marketer of lot mobiles, whereas the respondent No. 1 is one of the dealer of R2 in Kadapa District.  On 2-9-2014 the complainant purchased a tab from R1 for a sum of         ₹ 3,999/- under a bill with warranty of one year issued by manufacturer.  Soon after purchase the said tab, the complainant noticed that the display was not displaying and tab was not working properly.  The same was intimated to R1 number times.  Finally in the month of May 2015 the tab was handed over to R1 and he sent the same to R2 for necessary repairs and service, as the tab was under warranty period.  The tab was returned to him in the month of July 2015 stating that necessary repairs was done to the tab by respondents and they assured no problem will arise in future.   But after two days the same problem was repeated and tab was not working properly.  The complainant brought the same to the notice of R1 and requested him to replace the tab with a new one but respondent was giving evasive replies and failed to do so.  The complainant issued legal notice on                 14-8-2015 demanding them to replace the tab with new one or refund the amount of ₹ 3,999/- the same was received by the respondents but they did not give any reply or complied the demand.  Thus there is negligence on the part of the respondents for faulty service.  Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.  

3.             Respondents 1 & 2 filed common written version denying the allegations regarding their deficiency of service and liability to meet the demands of the complainant.   However, the respondents admitted the tab was purchased by complainant for ₹ 3,999/- from R1.  But they denied the other allegations of effecting repairs etc., The allegations regarding the display was not displaying and tab was not working properly are all false and not aware by the respondents and the complainant was making false allegations.   The defect alleged might have been caused due to physical damage of the tab.  The defect alleged by the complainant can only be determined with proper analysis from an expert to find out whether the tab has manufacturing defect or the said defect was caused otherwise due to negligent acts of the complainant.  The respondents cannot be responsible as it is not manufacturing defect.  The other allegations are denied.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

4.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the respondents?
3. To what relief?

5.             No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked and on behalf of the respondents no documents are marked.     

6.             Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments field by the complainant.   

7.             Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that the respondents admitted the tab was purchased on               2-9-2014 from 1^st respondent imported and marketed by 2^nd respondent under Ex. A1 bill and the tab was developed problems after its purchase regarding displaying and also not properly working.  So he brought the same to the notice of 1^st respondents and also issued notice under Ex. A2 on 14-8-2015 to replace the tab or refund amount of its purchase.  But the respondents have not properly responded.   Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  The technical expert produced by the respondents tested the tab in open court and gave opinion that it is not getting charged properly and not displaying.  Therefore, the deficiency of service on the part of the respondents is proved.   Hence, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as he underwent lot of mental agony and tension, apart from monetary loss. 

8.             Per contra it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the defect is only due to mishandling of tab by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs. 

9.             The tab was purchased by the complainant under Ex. A1 bill on               2-9-2014 from R1, which is import and marketed by R2.  There is warranty of one year to the said tab from the date of its purchase.  According to the complainant ever since from the purchase the tab was not properly functioning since there was no proper display and not working properly.  He informed the same to R1 who sent tab for service and returned stating that the defect was rectified.  But still the problem was persisting.  Then he issued notice under Ex. A2 on 14-8-2015 as the respondents not properly attended his grievance and sought for replacement of the tab or refund of its price.  The respondents received the said notice but no reply was given.  The same has been proved by the complainant by filing Exs. A2 to A4.  The only contention of respondents is that there was no manufacturing defect of the tab, but it was only due to mishandling of tab by the complainant, however there was no iota of evidence placed by them to prove the same. 

10.            It may be noted here at the instance of respondents the complainant produced the tab in this forum on the direction of this forum for testing by technical expert.  Accordingly, the complainant produced the tab on 3-2-2016 and the expert produced by the respondents tested the tab in open court and stated the instrument is not getting charged and not displaying.  There was no reply by the respondents for the above opinion given regarding tab by the expert produced by them.  It cannot be believed that the tab was mishandled due to the negligent act of complainant.  On the other hand it can be safely held that the tab was not properly functioned as there was inherent defect in the instrument itself.  Therefore, the defects could not be rectified by the respondents, when brought to their notice by the complainant, as such I hold there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents either to replace the tab or to refund its price to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with some compensation for mental agony and costs.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

11.            Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally to refund an amount of ₹ 3,999/- (Rupees three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) being the cost of tab and ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and  ₹ 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization. The complainant shall return the tab purchased by him to R1 under acknowledgement.

        Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 17^th February 2016

MEMBER                              MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                   For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex: A1       Original bill dated 02-09-2014 issued by the Lot Mobiles, Kadapa.

Ex: A2       Office Copy of legal Notice Dt.14-08-2015.issued by the complainant

                Council to Respondents.

Ex: A3       Acknowledgement card of Lot Mobiles, Kadapa.

Ex: A4       Postal Receipts two in numbers dt.14-08-2015.

Ex: A5       P/c of Receipts dated 21-05-2015 issued by the Lot Mobiles Pvt Ltd,

                Kadapa.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate for complainant  
2. The Manager, Lot Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9,

D.No. 4/475, Nagarajupet, Kadapa.

3. The Manager, Lot Mobiles, Lot towers, D.No. 1-98/8/5/A, Plot No. 3, Image Garden Lant, Madapur, Hyderabad                             

B.V.P.