BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 144/2014 Filed on 11/04/2014
Dated: 31..01..2017
Complainant:
Akhil Chandra. A.C., Akhilalayam, Thettimukku, Mathira-P.O., Kadaikkal, Kollam – 691 536.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
1. HCL Smart Technologies (Service Centre), Killippalam, Opp. PRS Hospital, Rajadhani Complex 1st Floor.
2. HCL Info Systems Ltd., D-233, Sector-63, Noida – 201 501.
This C.C having been heard on 14..11..2016, The Forum on 31..01..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
In the instant case the complainant purchased a Tablet manufactured by 1st opposite party for Rs. 10,299/- on 13/06/2013 through online. The product is also having one year warranty. But the products become defective on 11/01/2014 within the warranty period and he approached the 2nd opposite party service centre. The 2nd opposite party accepted the product and ensured that it will be given back within one week after service. But the product was not given to him till 11/04/2014. The service centre always escapes from the responsibility. Due to the irresponsible act of the 2nd opposite party the complainant was unable to use the product which he purchased for his project works. The complainant sustained loss due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of opposite parties and hence approached this Forum for refund of the purchase money along with cost and compensation.
2. The opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly filed version contenting that the tablet purchased by complainant on 13/06/2013 worked perfectly till 10/01/2014 and the problem detected on 11/01/2014 after a sustained use of almost seven months. The same was detected for camera problem and it is submitted that the tablet of the complainant is lying with the opposite parties in good working condition. The complainant is not taking delivery of the tablet every after many calls and reminders. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and it is prayed that to direct the complainant to collect the tablet from the opposite parties and to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2. The opposite parties filed affidavit and marked Ext. D1.
3. Issues:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs as sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): In the instant case complainant purchased a HCL ME x 3 (connect 3G) Tablet on 13/06/2013 through online by pay Rs. 10,299/- as per Ext. P1 having one year warranty. But after few months of purchase on 11/01/2014 the complainant gave the system to the 1st opposite party for repair. But the same was not given back to him till 11/04/2014 (the date of filing this complaint). The opposite parties’ also admits that the system was given for repair on 11/01/2014 and produced Ext. D1. According to the opposite parties the alleged defects detected was cameral problem. The Ext. D1 and Ext. P2 are copies of same document. In the Exts. D1 & P2 documents the problem reported are not only camera not working but hanging problem, auto report while using net. Any way the case of opposite parties is that they rectify the cameral problem and informed the complainant but he was not ready to collect the same from opposite parties. In the affidavit produced by the complainant, it is stated that only after 28/05/2014 ie after 2nd hearing the complaint the company men call him and informed him that the tablet was ready and to collect it. But the complainant was not ready to take back the tablet because the purpose of his purchasing the tab was not fulfilled. He purchased the same for his project work. From the exhibits produced by both parties it is seen that the product was with the opposite parties from 11/01/2014. Even though the opposite parties claim that they informed complainant that the tab was ready and he was not ready to collect it. The opposite parties did not produce any evidence to show that the tab was ready and the same was informed to the complainant. At the same time complainant admits that the opposite parties informed him about it, but only after filing the complaint and 2nd hearing. That means after a lapse of 5 months. The complainant was not ready to accept the tablet after this because the purpose for which he purchased the tablet was not served. Hence he prays for refund of the price of the tablet along with cost and compensation. Here the opposite parties failed to substantiate their contentions by producing documents and therefore we can go only with the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and are liable to compensate for it. Hence opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the tablet along with cost of Rs. 2500/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 10,299/- along with cost of Rs. 2500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 10,299/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment. The opposite parties can retain the tablet after complying the above said order.
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 31st day of January, 2017.
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 144/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of retail invoice dated 11 June 2013
P2 : Copy of service call note issued by HCL Infosystems Ltd.
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents:
D1 : Copy of service call note.
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
