Judgment:
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it parlty accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed the Opposite Parties (now one of which is the appellant, and the other two are respondents No.2 and 3), as under:-
œAfter going through the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that non-providing of proper and timely services by the OPs inspite of said tablet within the warranty period, definitely caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-
i) To get the Tablet of the complainant repaired, free of charge, and handover the same to him in perfect working order with extended warranty of one year from the date of such repair.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.4000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.7750/- being the cost of handset (Ann.C-1) plus Rs.4000/- as awarded along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.11.2013 till realization.?
2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased Swipe X74S Edge Tablet, on 18.01.2013, from Opposite Party No.3, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for a sum of Rs.7550/-, having one year warranty. It was stated that from the very beginning, the said tablet did not work properly. It was not giving satisfactory results, and suffered from the problems of automatic deletion of data; non-saving of data; and non-working of most of the applications. There was also some system software/mother board and hanging problem, in the said tablet. Accordingly, the tablet was taken to Opposite Party No.2 (Service Centre), on 20.07.2013, for rectification of the problems aforesaid, which (Opposite Party No.2), returned it on 26.07.2013, with an assurance that it will work properly. However, on the next day, the complainant again faced the same problems, and, thus, visited Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2, sent the tablet to Opposite Party No.1, for rectification of the defects therein. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, had assured the complainant that either the defects shall be rectified or a new tablet shall be provided, within a period of 25-30 days. Thereafter, the complainant made numerous calls, on the helpline number of Opposite Party No.1, but it kept on delaying the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that neither the tablet aforesaid was returned after the rectification of defects, nor the same was replaced with a new one. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of Rs.7,750/-, being the cost of tablet; compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted the sale of tablet, in question, to the complainant, having one year warranty. Repair of the said tablet, twice, was also admitted. It was stated that there was no manufacturing defect, in the said tablet. It was further stated that there was some software problem, in the tablet, and the technical team of Opposite Party No.1, repaired it, by loading/updating the software, which took 25 to 32 days. It was further stated that, in the meantime, Opposite Party No.1, came to know that the complainant had visited the office of Opposite Party No.2, and created a scene over there, with regard to non-acceptance of the repaired tablet, and insisted for a new one. It was further stated that, it was told to the complainant, that he would be provided a new tablet only, in case, there was some manufacturing defect, in the old one, but he bluntly refused to accept the same (old tablet). It was further stated that, in the month of Sept., 2013, as a goodwill gesture, it was decided to give a new tablet to the complainant, with extended three months warranty, but he did not agree. He also demanded huge amount of compensation. It was further stated that the complainant was even offered another much advanced tablet of the same Company, under the specifications of Swipe Halo Value Tablet, but he did not agree to accept that also. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was still ready to give a new advanced tablet of Swipe Halo Value, to the complainant, with three months extended warranty, as a goodwill gesture. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, vide order dated 27.11.2013.
5. The complainant, and Opposite Party No.1, led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that, no doubt, respondent No.1/ complainant, purchased Swipe X74S Edge Tablet, on 18.01.2013, from Opposite Party No.3, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, for a sum of Rs.7550/-, having one year warranty. He further submitted that, no complaint, with regard to any defect, in the tablet was made upto 19.07.2013. He further submitted that it means that for a period of about six months, the tablet worked properly, without any defect. He further submitted that, for the first time, on 20.07.2013, the complainant came to Opposite Party No.2, with some problem, in the tablet. He further submitted that, whatever the faults were reported by him, in the tablet, were rectified, and he received back the same, after being fully satisfied, as is evident, from the endorsement œOK?, appended by him, on Annexure C-3. He further submitted that again on 31.07.2013, the complainant came with the tablet, reporting the problems, that its applications were not working and the data was not being saved by it. He further submitted that the tablet was kept by Opposite Party No.2, and, ultimately, it was sent to Opposite Party No.1, at Bombay, where, it took about 25 to 32 days, and, ultimately, the same was repaired. He further submitted that when the complainant was called, to take back the tablet, he failed to do so. He further submitted that even during the pendency of the complaint, Opposite Party No.1, offered the refund of price of tablet, in question, to the complainant, but he did not receive the same, saying that he should also be granted compensation. He further submitted that, thus, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in accepting the complaint. He further submitted that even the compensation, including the cost, awarded by the District Forum, was on the higher side. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the tablet, in question, was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.3, on 18.01.2013. This tablet was manufactured by Opposite Party No.1. No doubt, the tablet worked properly, for a period of about six months, from the date of its purchase, as no problem, therein, was reported by the complainant, upto 20.07.2013. It was, for the first time, on 20.07.2013, that the complainant took the tablet to Opposite Party No.2, Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1, and the problem was rectified, as is evident, from Annexure C-3. It is evident, from the record that again there were problems, in the tablet, as its applications were not working, and the data was not being saved by it. This tablet was taken to the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1, on 31.07.2013, as is evident, from Annexure C-4. In the written version, it was admitted by Opposite Party No.1, that the tablet was sent to its Head Office, and it took about 25 to 32 days, for repair of the same. There is nothing, on the record, that any written notice was sent to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, that the tablet had been repaired, and he should collect the same. Mere oral plea of the Counsel for appellant, that after the rectification of defects, in the tablet, the complainant was asked to collect the same, but he refused to do so, is therefore not believable. It is evident, from the record that the tablet was suffering from some defects and it took sufficient time, for the alleged rectification thereof, by Opposite Party No.1. Neither the tablet, in question, was returned to the complainant, after rectification of defects, nor the same was replaced with a new one, till the filing of complaint. There was, therefore, deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
11. No doubt, it is evident, from the District Forum record, that during the pendency of complaint, Opposite Party No.1 was ready to refund a sum of Rs.7,750/-, being the price of tablet, but the complainant was not ready to accept the same, as he wanted compensation also. Had the tablet been returned to the complainant, after the rectification of defects, before the filing of complaint, or refund of the price thereof, been made to him, before institution of the same (complaint), the matter would have been different. The complainant was dragged to litigation, by the Opposite Parties. The complainant was thus, right in not accepting the refund, during the pendency of complaint, without sufficient compensation. The mere fact that Opposite Party No.1, was ready to refund the price of tablet, during the pendency of complaint, i.e. on 13.02.2014, in itself, could not be sufficient, to condone it, of its deficiency, in rendering service. The complainant suffered mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-use of the tablet, for sufficient longer time. He was, thus, required to be compensated. Keeping in view the mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by the complainant, and the injury caused to him, the District Forum was right, in awarding compensation, including cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.4,000/-. Compensation, including cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.4,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be unfair and unreasonable. On the other hand, it could be said to be fair, reasonable and adequate, and commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.