Order No. 16 dt. 29/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one HCL brand ME Tablet at a price of Rs. 5,600/- from the o.p. 2. The said tablet was given warranty of one year, i.e. from 04/05/2013 to 04/03/2014. After purchase the complainant noticed that the device developed problems of hanging, auto rebooting, booting failure etc. The complainant submitted the device to the o.p. 1and after some days the device was received by the complainant and after two weeks the again the problem started. The complainant thereafter went to the o.p. 1 and handed over the same for removal of the defects in such manner the complainant noticed that repeatedly the device had the difficulties and it was not functioning properly for which the complainant filed the case praying for direction upon the o.p. 2 to refund the amount and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
The o.p. 2 contested the case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that being the seller of the said product they cannot be held liable for replacement of the said product as well as for the refund of the money to the complainant. It was further stated regarding the manufacturing defect the manufacturer is liable as such the o.p. 2 prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
The other o.p.s did not contest the case therefore the case has been proceeded ex-parte against them.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :
- Whether the complainant purchased the HCL brand ME Tablet ?
- Whether there was any defect in the said tablet during the warranty period ?
- Whether the complainant lodged his complaint to the dealer regarding the said defect ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s ?
- 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 the complainant purchased one HCL brand ME Tablet at a price of Rs. 5,600/- on the occasion of birthday of his daughter. Immediately after the purchase of the said device the complainant noticed that the device was not functioning properly and reported the matter to the o.p. 2. After keeping the said device for some days the same was returned. The complainant again noticed some defects and reported the matter to the o.p. 2 and the same was kept in the shop of o.p. 2 and subsequently it was delivered to the complainant. The complainant further found that defect arose and again he reported the matter to the o.p. 2. In such manner the complainant noticed that the complainant had to face trouble in operating the said device for a number of times within the warranty period. Since no positive action was taken on behalf of the o.p.s the complainant had no other option but to file this case for reliefs.
The Ld. lawyer for the o.p. 2 argued that being the seller of the said product they cannot be held liable for defect in the said HCL brand ME Tablet. The manufacturing defect, if any, can only be cured by the manufacturer, not the dealer of the said product. In support of the said contention the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 2 cited several rulings.
Other o.p.s did not contest the case as such the case has proceeded ex-parte against them.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the HCL brand ME Tablet at a price of Rs. 5,600/- from the o.p. 2. It is an admitted fact that the complainant faced trouble during the subsistence of the warranty period. It is found from the materials on the record that the comp[lainatn faced several problems within the warranty period. On all occasions he went to o.p. 2 for removal of the defects. The complainant while noticed that the said device was giving trouble to him he made several correspondences with the o.p. 1, 3, 4 and 5 but no effective step was taken from their side. Even after filing of the case though the notices were served upon the o.p.s but they ignored to contest the case to meet the allegation made by the complainant against them. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the complainant faced such problem during the warranty period therefore we have no hesitation to say that the device itself had the manufacturing defect for which the complainant will be entitled to get the refund of the amount paid by him for purchasing the said device. Since the o.p. 2 being the seller of the product cannot have any liability in respect of the manufacturing defect of the said product. Since other o.p.s being the manufacturer are liable to refund the amount as well as compensation.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 544 of 2014 is allowed on contest against o.p.s no. 1, 3, 4, and 5 and the same is dismissed against o.p. 2. The o.p.s no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,600/- and pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- 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.
