
Ashish Kumar filed a consumer case on 27 Apr 2015 against M/s HCL Touch in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/668/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 05 May 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
======
Consumer Complaint No | : | 668 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 09.10.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 27.04.2015 |
Ashish Kumar s/o Sh.Vijay Kumar, R/o House No.2987, Sector 56, Chandigarh
…..Complainant
M/s H.C.L. Touch, situated in SCO 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh
….. Opposite Party
Argued By: Complainant in person.
Opposite Party exparte.
PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER
As per the case of the complainant, the complainant purchased a Tablet from Opposite Party on 27.12.2013 for Rs.7999/- against bill having one year warranty upto 26.12.2014. It is averred that when the complainant made several visits the Opposite Party Company for repair of the Tablet, it neither sent it to its Head Office nor returned after repairs. It is also averred that in the Tablet due to the loss of power of unit, it automatically closed and did not work, as a result, the complainant faced great problem. Further, it is averred that the Opposite Party also assured the complainant to replace the tablet, but failed. Hence, this complaint.
2] The Opposite Party did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.2.2015.
3] Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
4] We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record.
5] The complainant has proved his case by leading documentary evidence as well as tendering his duly sworn affidavit in which he reiterated the averments as averred in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record the Retail Invoice, dated 27.12.2013 for Rs.7999/- through which the Tablet in question was purchased. He also placed on record the Service Order Sheet dated 17.9.2014 vide which he handed over the tablet to the Opposite Party with the problems of “Unit shut down automatically, rebooting issue, screen and speaker malfunctioning, take a long time to restart”. It is also evident from the said Service Order Sheet that the tablet in question was under warranty when the same was handed over to OP for rectification of the defects. The Opposite Party failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the tablet was under warranty. Non-repairing of the tablet, in question, despite repeated requests proves deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
6] Moreover, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. Non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & un-controverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party is proved.
7] In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to return the tablet to the complainant after repairing it to the satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost and also to pay Rs.5000/- as composite amount towards compensation and litigation cost, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till it is paid.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
27th April, 2015
Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(PRITI MALHOTRA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.