Complaint Details

Status	:	Closed
Complaint No	:	0015278/2014
Category	:	Computers & Accessories
Date	:	09-03-2014
Subject Line	:	Claim for Refund and Costs for a Defective Item
Complainant	:	Rajendra Prasad
Address	:	Rajendra Prasad, 16/5A Vivekananda Puram, Aditya Nagar, PO-BHU, VARANASI - 221005
Complainee	:	infibeam.com
Address	:	Mr. Vishal Mehta; Chief Executive Officer/Director, Infibeam.com; 9th Floor,A-Wing, Gopal Palace, Nehrunagar,Ahmedabad.

Complaint Details
Please see attached PDF files.


1. This dispute relates to Rajendra Prasad of 16/5A Vivekananda Puram, Aditya Nagar, PO-BHU
VARANASI (referred hereafter as “Consumer”) and Infibeam.com, 9th Floor,A-Wing, Gopal Palace, Nehrunagar,
Ahmedabad. Gujarat, headed by Mr. Vishal Mehta, Chief Executive Officer (referred hereafter as “Company”)

2. On 08-01-2014 order (order ID:12391294) for one tablet each of the following
Videocon VT-75C Calling Tablet (4 GB, White) and
BSNL Penta WS-708C Dual Sim Calling Tablet (4 GB, Silver)
was placed by the Consumer (Ref. Page-1).

3. On 09-01-2014 Company through email informed that under order ID : 12391294 (sub order ID: 21480964), BSNL Penta WS-708C Dual Sim Calling Tablet (4 GB, Silver) have been shipped (Ref. Page-2).

4. It was delivered on 11-01-2014 afternoon. Applicant was readying to catch train to Hyderabad. He unpacked the product, checked that all components as per the invoice were there, put them in his bag and left for railway station. (Ref. Invoice no. DT-140109-6092-003 Dated: 09-01-2014).

5. On arrival in Hyderabad product was used on 13-01-2014 by the Consumer. It stopped working on 14-01-2014. Customer care of Company was informed of dysfunctional device the same day by email (Ref. Page-3).
6. 16-01-2014, Company asked for images of the product. (Ref. Page-4).
7. Images with other details were sent on 17-01-2014 by the Consumer. Also Company was asked to provide address of its return office in Hyderabad and Varanasi; and to send the replacement. (Ref. Page-5-7)
8. In response to subsequent telephone call Company informed that there was no service center in Varanasi. It supplied addresses of 3 offices 2 were in Secunderabad and one in Nalgonda (Ref. Page-8,9). Consumer talked to the mobile no. of “Sai Mobiles” given therein and on confirmation went to his office. On arrival there they refused to entertain the product. Subsequently Consumer approached the second office of “Sri Sai Communications” that also refused to entertain.
9. Subsequently Consumer informed about refusal to entertain by the customer care was informed to Infibeam.com (Company’s) customer care on phone as well as by email (Ref. Page-10, 11).
10. Consumer also informed company’s customer care that he had incurred Rs. 347.00 (Rs. 170 + 150 in travel and Rs. 11 + 14 on two calls) in addition to half day’s loss of work. He requested Company to send the replacement so as to reach Varanasi address by 21st January and to collect the defective product (Ref. Page-12).
11. On 22-01-2014 Company advised on packing details and labels to include while packing. It also wrote that it will be picked up on 20-01-2014 (??) by Blue Dart (Ref. Page-12).
12. In its email on 22-01-2014 Company had informed “We will initiate the process to reship your item as soon as we receive your packet” (Ref. Page-12; 4th line from bottom.)
13. While traveling back from Hyderabad to Varanasi, on 19-01-2014 Consumer was informed by the Company’s customer care on phone that a replacement was sent by DHL and that he shall keep the defective item ready for pickup by the delivery boy.
14. On 23-01-2014 Consumer talked to company’s customer care (agent name Ms Chhaya) on phone and informed that neither defective item has been picked up nor the replacement has been delivered. Also he informed that their 22-01-2014 email was misleading. She orally assured of pick up, but was non-committal on delivery of replacement. Conversation costed the Consumer Rs. 22.50.
15. Above was informed in writing by e-mail and Company was advised to deliver the replacement by 26-01-2014 (AN) (Ref. Page-13, 14).
16. In a separate e-mail dated 23-01-2014 Company was sent pictures of packing as advised in company’s email dated 22-01-2014 (Ref. Page-15-17) and was requested to ensure prompt delivery of replacement.
17. In its email on 25-01-2014 Company informed that they have received complaint (Ref. Page-18).
18. On 27-01-2014 Customer wrote that Company was using deceptive method to avoid to be tracked and was non-responsive as much the replacement and pick-up of the defective item was concerned (Ref. Page-19).
19. On 27-01-2014 Company sent a general apology, but was non-committal in terms of replacement and pick-up of the defective item (Ref. Page-20). The defective item was picked up in the afternoon, the same day, but replacement was not delivered.
20. On 03-02-2014 Consumer wrote to the Company that it must have received the defective product and that it should ensure prompt delivery of the replacement (Ref. Page-21).
21. On 13-02-2014 Company confirmed receipt of defective product. But it was silent on replacement and wrote that it will advise about next course of action on a later date (Ref. Page-22).
22. In reply Consumer reminded the Company of its dubious handling of the issue and also reminded that on 22-01-2014 it had written that soon as defective product is received it “will initiate the process to reship” the replacement. Consumer advised the Company that it must either send replacement or refund the full amount, so as to reach him latest by 20-02-2014, failing which legal action be initiated to recover the cost paid as well as other costs and losses incurred in the process (Ref. Page-23).
23. On 20-02-2014 Company asked for some more time resolve the matter (Ref. Page-24).
24. On 22-02-2014 Consumer wrote to Company extending time till 27-02-2014 to resolve the matter (Ref. Page-25).
25. On 25-02-2014 Company wrote a generalized assurance to resolve the issue, but had been non-committal in terms of time and delivery of the replacement or refund of the costs and losses (Ref. Page-26).
26. On 27-02-2014 Consumer informed the Company that it had been illusive and non-committal about replacement and/or refund of costs and thus the matter be raised in an appropriate Court (Ref. Page-27).
27. On 27-02-2014 Company again asked to give it some time (Ref. Page-28).

So far it is 10 days since then but customer failed to receive his due. Therefore, matter is placed before the Hon. Consumer Court to adjudicate. Consumer’s total costs and losses in the process accumulate to Rs. 11739.00 (details given as below).

Cost of the item Rs. 5555.00
Cost incurred in travel and phone calls, while acting on the advise of the Company Rs. 369.50
Cost of half day’s loss of work, while acting on advice of the company on 17-01-2014 Rs. 5814.50
Total cost and losses Rs. 11739.00

This is in addition to mental stress and agony suffered in the process.

Appeal:

Honorable Court is requested to order the defaulting company (i.e. Infibeam.com through its CEO/Director Mr. Vishal Mehta )-

1. To pay the customer Rs. 11379.00 plus interest there on @19.5% w.e.f. 01-02-2014 till date and all Legal Costs in the cause. AND

2. To stop selling any product online for which company does not have proper repair/service unit of its own. AND

3. To stop advertising of sale of any such product online as referred in par.2 above. AND

4. To place a notice on its website informing customers to claim refund of money for defective items it has sold and for which customers have registered complaint with the company, AND to implement such refunds.

Signed by
Rajendra Prasad



On 09th day of March 2014

Replies