Case nº Revision Petition No. 381 of 2011 in Appeal No. 09/895 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, August 02, 2011 (case Sandeep Bhalla Vs Ashoka Electronics)
| President | Mr. V.B. Gupta, J., Presiding Member & Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member |
| Resolution Date | August 02, 2011 |
Order:
Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, (New Delhi)
-
Present revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (for short as "Act") has been filed against order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short as "State Commission"). By impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner against order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Central), Delhi (for short as "District Forum"), was dismissed.
-
Petitioner, who was complainant before the District Forum has pleaded that he purchased a mobile phone-cum pocket PC namely. Imate Pdal from respondent/OP on 7.4.2007 for Rs. 21,900. Later on, the petitioner found that there were serious manufacturing defects in the product, which constitute deficiency of goods. Respondent failed to disclose the address of the manufacturer and has also failed to provide after sale service.
-
Petitioner pleaded in his complaint about following defects in the product:
-
The device is not supported by the manufacturer's web site and upon entering the 1MEI No. it flashes a massage that it is not supported hence no update of its virus databse has been possible.
-
The quality of touch screen is extremely poor.
-
The top portion of touch screen is malfunctioning and to click at a point one has to click above the actual point to get desired result.
-
The exclusive use of style provided in the device in the right side area of the screen at the point 'closed' and 'scroll bar' and also at start button as developed ugly scars/marks.
-
The signal quality is very poor. The functioning of processor at the speed of 250 mhz is very slow as comparison to other devices.
-
The GPRS connectivity is impossible.
-
The WIFI connection provided in the device, is extremely slow.
-
The hand free speaker is too small and suffers from designing defects.
-
The promised talk time is 5 hours but the battery hardly last around 2-3 hours and again it has to be recharged.
-
The size of phone pad at touch screen is inadequately designed. The side button are placed unimaginatively and very often are pressed involuntarily while attempting to hold the device.
-
It is further stated that the device appears to have been launched in India as a Beta product to test it and gullible people have been persuaded to believe that it is an advanced product. It has been also pleaded by the petitioner that he has suffered monetary loss and mental agony, harassment in...
To continue reading
Request your trial