Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/209/2015

M/s.R.Buvana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, M/s.Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Subramania Raja

06 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 05.05.2015                                                                

Date of Reservation      : 16.05.2022                                                                      

                                                                                 Date of Order               : 06.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.209/2015

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Ms. R.Buvana,

D/o. P.R.N. Ramamurthi,

Flat No.T-3, Third Floor,

Shivaji Flats, No.30, 10^th Avenue,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                                                     …Complainant

 

-Vs-

1.The Regional Manager,

   M/s. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED

   (Formerly Reliance Fresh Limited)

   Plot No. A-37, Door No.21, 21-A, First Avenue,

   Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

 

2.Mr. RIYAZ AHMED

   Staff No.8939,

   M/s. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED,

   (Formerly Reliance Fresh Limited)

   Plot No. A-37, Door No.21, 21-A, First Avenue,

   Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

 

3.The Regional Manager,

   KARBONN MOBILE,

   #39/13, off 7 Main, HAL 2^nd Stage, AppareddyPalya

   Indira Nagar, Bangalore  560038.

 

4.The Regional Manager,

   KARBONN MOBILE,

   D-170, Okhala Industries Area,

   Phase-1, NEW DELHI – 110020.

 

5.The Manager,

   M/s. DEPROSYS TECHNOLOGIES,

   New No.3, Ground Floor, Anandhan Street,

   North Usman Road,

   T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.                                     …Opposite parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant                       : M/s. S. Subramania Raja

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties      : M/s. K. Ravikumar

Counsel for the 3^rd,4^th, 5^th Opposite Parties    : Exparte

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.    The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to return and hand over the Karbonn Tablet bearing Model No.S T – 2, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-  towards mental agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and for unfair trade practice along with cost of the complaint.

2.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant had purchased KARBONN Tablet model ST-2 along with the memory card of Transcend Brand bearing Model No. TS16 GU for a sum of Rs.3548.20 vide Invoice No. C5275 #2 S 8939RO12 dated 25.02.2014. She left to Australia and gifted the KARBONN Tablet to her grand daughter. When it was switched on the Complainant found that the Tablet did not respond. she immediately called the Ashok Nagar Reliance shop and informed that the product was not working. The 2^nd Opposite Party told that the Complainant can return the product after her arrival to Chennai in June 2014. The Complainant visited the 1^st Opposite Party showroom and met the 2^nd Opposite Party and reported that the Tablet is not working. The 2^nd Opposite Party told that he will book a complaint with 4^th Opposite Party and send the tablet for service. When she contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party to know the position of the Tablet  the 2^nd Opposite Party was giving lame excuses. She had sent an e-mail to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 26.08.2014 requesting to extend the warranty for the Tablet  and also requested to refund or to replace the Tablet. The 2^nd Opposite Party refused replacement but promised to refund the amount of the Tablet. When the Complainant visited the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and requested to handover the Tablet, they behaved in a rude manner. Their negligent act and unfair trade practice had put the Complainant to grave hardship and mental agony. Hence the Complaint.

3.      Version filed by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant had purchased KARBONN Tablet, Model ST-2 on 25.02.2014 for a sum of Rs 3,499/- from this Opposite Parties on 10.06.2014 when the Complaint was received the first Opposite Parties informed the details of the 3^rd,4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties and guided the Complainant to approach the 5^th Opposite Party service center, since the set product was covered under the warranty period, the service against manufacturing defects if any shall be handled by the brand KARBONN or its authorized service center only. In order to satisfy the Complainant and with intend to maintain cordial relationship with the customer the 1^st Opposite Party asked the 2^nd Opposite Party to receive the KARBONN Tab from the Complainant to handover the same to the 5^th Opposite Party and after service was done and defect is rectified the Complainant had to approach the 5^th Opposite Party directly after receiving information about the readiness of the product after rectifying the defect. It was out of the perveiw of the first Opposite Party in respect of service of KARBONN Tablet as it is only a retailer which product was manufactured by the 3rd and 4^th Opposite Party and the liability of the first Opposite Party is restricted to sales only and the warranty and other cover are provided by the manufacturer of the product. As a gesture of goodwill the 1^st opposite party has provided all kind of assistance to the Complainant to get her grievances properly addressed to the manufacturer or to the service center concerned. The Complainant himself admitted that the 5^th Opposite Party attended the service and filed the job sheet dated 12.06.2014, the 1^st and 2^ndOpposite Parties are nothing to do with respect of her client of alleged defect in the KARBONN Tablet. This complaint is not maintainable as there was no default or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.   On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8                                                                                                                                                                      were marked.  The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of  1^st and 2^ndOpposite Parties Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 were marked.

5.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties 3, 4 and 5 have not appeared before this Commission and hence, the Opposite Parties 3, 4 and  5 were called absent and set Ex-parte.

6.      The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

7.      Point No.1:-

The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had purchased KARBONN Tablet Model ST-2 and a memory card from the 1^st Opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,548.20/- on 25.02.2014 as per Ex A-1. As the product was not working in June 2014 the Complainant made a complaint to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party. As per Ex.A-2, the job sheet dated 12.06.2014 the 2^nd Opposite Party has sent the Tablet to the 5^th Opposite Party for service. However as the position of the Tablet was not known the Complainant had sent e-mail to the 2^nd Opposite party on 26.08.2014 vide Ex B-4. Subsequently there were exchange of mails by the Opposite Parties to resolve the issue faced by the Complainant. On 01.12.2014 the Complainant had sought for refund of money as found in Ex B-5. Again on 06.02.2015 vide Ex A-3 the Complainant had issued legal notice to the Opposite parties to return and handover the Tablet in good and working condition and to pay compensation for the sufferings of the Complainant. Even after receipt of the notice, as found in Ex A-4 to A-8, the Opposite Parties failed to respond. Since the Tablet was not returned by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was made to suffer serious hardship and mental agony. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 has admitted the purchase of the KARBONN Tablet from them the contention of Opposite Party is that upon the complaint received from the Complainant, on 10.06.2014, though the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that, as a retailer, their liability is restricted to sales and asked to contact the 5^th Opposite Parties, who is the authorized service center of the 3^rd and Opposite parties, on request of the Complainant in order to maintain cordial relationship with the customer the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties would hand over the Tablet to the 5^th Opposite Party and that the Complainant had to collect directly from the 5^th Opposite Party. Further the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties contended that they never assured to replace the tablet or collect from 5^th Opposite Party and return to the Complainant.

On perusal of Ex A-2, the job sheet of the 5^th Opposite Party it is evident that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties has handed over the Tablet to 5^th Opposite Party for service. From the exchange of e-mails between the Complainant and the third Opposite Party vide Ex B-4 it is found that the Complainant was much dissatisfy about the quality of the product and 5^th Opposite Party has also come forward to extend the warranty for the service delayed period. However there is no evidence to show us to whether the warranty was extended. Even after the letter dated 01.12.2014 issued by the Complainant and even on receipt of the legal notice dated 09.02.2015, the Opposite Parties have not come forward to return the Tablet in good condition. The act of the Opposite Parties in not returning the Tablet in good working condition after service to the complainant which was handed over by the complainant to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

8.      Point No.2 and 3:-

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions above this commission is of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled for to replacement of the KARBONN Tablet bearing Model ST2 with brand new tablet or its equivalent model, to pay a sum of Rs 10,000/-  towards compensation for the deficiency in service and also for the mental agony caused by the Opposite Parties and to pay Rs 3000/-  towards cost. Accordingly Point No.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite parties 1 to 5  are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,548.20p (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight and Twenty Paise Only)  towards Karbonn Tablet bearing Model No.S T – 2, and Transcend Memory Card, with interest @ 6% from 05.05.2015 till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service and also for the mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay Rs 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost.

The Opposite Parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally shall pay the above amounts within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the same along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realization.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed.

 Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  6^th  day of June 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	25.02.2014	Purchase bill of the first Opposite Party
Ex.A2	12.06.2014	Job Sheet of the 5th Opposite Party
Ex.A3	06.02.2015	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant
Ex.A4	09.02.2015	Acknowledgement card of the first Opposite Party
Ex.A5	09.02.2015	Acknowledgement card of the second Opposite Party
Ex.A6	09.02.2015	Acknowledgement card of the Third Opposite Party
Ex.A7		Acknowledgement card of the fourth Opposite Party
Ex.A8	09.02.2015	Acknowledgement card of the Fifth Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	25.02.2014	Purchase bill of the Complainant
Ex.B2	10.06.2014	Job Sheet of the Opposite Party
Ex.B3	12.06.2014	Job sheet of the 5th Opposite Party
Ex.B4	11.09.2014	Mail conversation copy of the Complainant
Ex.B5	01.12.2014	Letter copy of the Complainant
Ex.B6	06.02.2015	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant
Ex.B7	02.03.2015	Acknowledgment copy of the Complainant Advocate

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT