Order No. 22 dt. 28/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one HCL ME Tablet from the o.p. no.2 at a price of Rs.7900/-. The complainant stated that after delivery of the said tablet the complainant gave full charge in the tablet and tried to operate the same but found that the said tablet was not at all operating. The complainant immediately rushed to o.p. no.2 and lodged a complaint regarding the defect in the said tablet. After receiving the complaint o.p. no.2 assured her that the tablet would be replaced but in spite of repeated requests the tablet was not replaced. Subsequently on 18.11.13 the complainant went to o.p. no.1 and produced the bill and warranty card and after examining the tablet it was found that the tablet has manufacturing defect.
The complainant stated that o.p. nos.1 and 2 sold the tablet to complainant knowing fully well that the same was defective and doing unfair trade practice the complainant filed this complaint praying for return the value of the tablet as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.
The o.p. no.2. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. no.2 is a retail proprietorship firm and sold the tablet at price of Rs.7900/-. The complainant after purchase found some defects in the said tablet and visited the shop of the o.p. and the said tabled if it is found to be defective within the warranty period it is the duty of o.p. no.1 to make necessary rectification or to remove the defects. The complainant instead of urging her plea to o.p. no.1 has falsely implicated o.p. no.2 in this case. In view of the said fact the o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case against him.
The o.p. no.1 has not contested the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.1.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased one tablet at a price of Rs.7900/-.
- Whether the o.p. no.1 was the manufacturer of the said tablet.
- Whether the said tablet had manufacturing defect.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that within the warrantee period the tablet was not functioning properly and immediately after finding the defect in the said tablet visited the shop of o.p. no.2 who after examination held that the tablet had some defects which he cannot rectify. The complainant thereafter tried to contact the o.p. no.1 for removal of the defect but no assistance was provided ultimately complainant had to file this case praying for reliefs.
Ld. lawyer further emphasized that in order to ascertain the defect a petition was filed by complainant for appointment of an expert for examination of the said tablet. Accordingly as per the order of this Forum the tablet was sent to the George Telegraph Training Institute for expert comment. The report was received by the Forum wherefrom it is evident that the problem was in the charging section of the multilayer PCB of the HCL tablet.
On the basis of the said report ld. lawyer has prayed for passing necessary order against the o.p. no.1.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that he simply sold the tablet to complainant and he has no hand in the manufacturing defect in the said set. If there was any defect in the said tablet the o.p. no.1 is to be given direction for replacement of the tablet or for payment of the value of the said set.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant in order to prove the purchase in respect of the said tablet the receipt was filed and the same was purchased from the shop of o.p. no.2. The o.p. no.2 has admitted that the said tablet was purchased from the o.p. no.2. It is also found from the materials on record that immediately after the said purchase of the tablet some defects arose and the complainant had to rush from o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2 for removal of the said defect but assistance was provided to the complainant resulting in filing of this case and praying for reliefs by the complainant.
In order to prove the defect in the said tablet the complainant filed a petition praying for an opinion of an expert and accordingly the tablet was sent to George Telegraph Institute and a report was sent from the said institute after examining the tablet and the said report it was stated that the problem was in a charging section of the multilayer PCB of HCL tablet i.e. there was manufacturing defect. Accordingly the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
The CC No.742/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.2 and allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. no.1. The o.p. no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7900/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred) only towards the value of the said tablet along with compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
