Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/431/2017

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HCL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Mahto Adv.

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	431/2017
Date of Institution	:	30.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2018

 

                                       

                                               

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra s/o Sh.Umakant Mishra aged 39 years, r/o H.No.1535, Sector 47-B, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     M/s HCL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Towers, HCL Technology Hub, Plot No.3-A, Sector 126, Noida-201303, UP India through its Chairman/Director.

 

2.     M/s Touch-One Stop Repair Services, through its Officer Incharge, SCO No.66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A,Chandigarh

 

3.     Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager/Director, Plot No.485, Phase V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Dinesh Mahto, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.J.S.Thind, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2.

Sh.Nihal Singh, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a HCL Due Sim Core 3 Calling Table online from OP No.3 vide Invoice dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.6999/-, having warranty of one year.  The tablet started giving problem and applications crashing software issue developed in the tablet, he landed the said tablet with the authorized service center i.e. OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 29.10.2015.  Thereafter he made inquiries from OP No.2 but no positive response came forward and as such he approached OPs No.1 and 3 through e-mails and their executive gave false assurances regarding solution of the problem occurred in the tablet.  According to the complainant he visited OP No.2 many times who stated that the tablet was sent to the head office for its repairs and they gave offer for taking another second hand tablet.  It has further been averred that despite several visits and requests, OP No.2 has not get repaired the tablet till date.  Finally he requested the OPs No.1 and 3 either to replace the same or to refund its price but to no effect.  Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 21.04.2017 upon the OPs but to no effect.       Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their joint written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have submitted that OP No.2 has properly tested the product and after detecting the problem and considering the time to be taken in the rectification of the same, it offered a standby device of similar segment till the faulty one gets repaired but he refused to accept the said device.  It has been pleaded that after going through the issues in the product, they informed the complainant through OP No.2 that the same cannot be repaired as the defective part was not available being out of stock and therefore, OP No.1 offered the refund of the invoice amount to the complainant which he refused to accept.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.3 has admitted that the complainant had purchased the tablet in question on 29.12.2014. However, it was pleaded that the warranty was given by OP No.1, being the manufacturer. It has been pleaded that the complainant called OP No.3 only once on 10.08.2017 to inform that he had submitted the tablet in the authorized service center in 2015 but till date he had not received the tablet, hence he was guided to contact authorized service center and the manufacturer for better assistance to which he agreed. After that he never established any contact with OP No.3 again.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written replies of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and going through the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the  reasons stated hereinafter.  Admittedly, the tablet in question has not been repaired by OPs No.1 and 2 on account of non-availability of the necessary part within the warranty period and the tablet is still lying in their custody.  The OPs No.1 and 2 took a plea in the written statement that they have offered the invoice price of the tablet in question to the complainant but he refused to accept the same. However, no documentary and reliable evidence in support of the same has been adduced by them. Moreover, the complainant has specifically stated in his rejoinder that no such offer was ever made by them.
7.         In our considered view, if the necessary part of the product in question is not available then the OPs No.1 and 2 should have taken a prompt decision to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant and he cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period especially when the product is within warranty.  Moreover, it is the duty of the manufacturer to maintain the stock of the necessary consumable parts of the product within the warranty period so that the consumer will not suffer any mental agony and harassment. Thus, the OPs No.1 and 2 have proved to be deficient in service by not redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant within the warranty period.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.6,999/- i.e. price of the tablet in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,100/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.5,100/- as litigation expenses.

9.         This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.         The complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/06/2018 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER