Date of filing:-16/10/2017.
Date of Order:-20/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2017.
Hrudananda Sa, aged about years, S/o. Tankadhar Sa, R/o. Tora,Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainants.
- V e r s u s -
Poonam Computers, represented through its proprietor, Main Road, Near Dharmasala Chowk, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh
The Managing Director, Dell India Pvt.Ltd, Divyashree Greens, 12/1, 12/2a/13/1a Koramanbgala Inner Ring Road, Bangalore, India, 560068... ...Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.B. Tripathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri N. Sahoo, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- Sri. D.D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.20/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case:-
In pursuance to the provision U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant has preferred to file the case as hereunder that the Complainant has purchased a laptop from the Opposite Party No.1(one) with the name and model i.e. Inspiron 5559 C I 3/4/ITB/ababntu Dell s/n JO2PBG2 vide invoice No.64. on Dtd.10.04.2017 , and during the subsistence of the warranty period ,the said Laptop started giving trouble and did not work properly for which the Complainant lodged a complain on Dt.09.07.2017 to get it repaired to which the Opposite Party No.1(one) updated on Dt.15.07.2017 but again it started giving the same trouble for which the Complainant again reported the matter as a result of which the Opposite Party No.1(one) sent some technician on dt.04.08.2017 and on the advice of the said technician replaced the Mother board but in spite of that the same problem continued as such the Complainant complained before the Opposite Party No.1(one) but when he did not respond to his report, He sent a Pleader Notice to both the Opposite Parties conveying the same trouble but to no answer from any of them which in his view is deficiencies of service on the part of both of the Opposite Parties ,thus has filed the case before the forum with a prayer to replace the same with a new one and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and Rs.7000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only towards compensation for his mental agony and litigation expenses respectively. And in his support has filed the following Documents i. Invoice No-64 ii. Complaint made by the Complainant .iii. Delivery Status. iv. A/D.card from Poonam Computer and . v. warranty report by dell India Pvt Ltd.
Perused the Complaint ,the Documents filed by the Complainant and on hearing the Advocate for him the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties and on being noticed they appeared and have filed their written versions separately.
The rival contention of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is a complete denial of the Complainant except the averment made in the Complaint with regard to the sale of the same , but he has completely denied the averment that during the subsistence of the warranty period of the same it started showing problem with it and consequent upon his complain the Opposite Party sent his technician and that he replaced the mother board , rather he has clearly denied of him being an authorized dealer of the company concern or is an authorised service centre of the same and as such has denied to have any responsibility of repairing the same on the contrary has shifted his responsibility on the Opposite Party No.2(two) with a reply that he being the manufacturer of the same , he is responsible for the trouble if any occurred with the Laptop hence has claimed not be deficient in giving service to the Complainant nor thereupon. And also he has alleged that the reply to the pleader notice being served with him was duely replied to which the Complainant has suppressed which amounts to suppression of materials facts , thus the case is liable to be dismissed and in support of his such contentions has filed a notes of arguments in addition to the oral submission of his counsel .
And so far the averment made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) is concerned, it has also completely denied it’s being deficient in providing service to the Complainant and admitted that it has rendered the best possible service to the Complainant and at the same time it has stated that if it’s products being sold by other person other than it’s authorized dealer and undertakes to repair, then the same transaction treated to be a void one for violation of the warranty condition and so it has taken it’s utmost care in providing service to the Complainant but the complainant has denied the same with an unreasonable demand of the replacement of the same violating the terms condition of the warranty at the same time has also stated in it’s version that the Opposite Party No.1(one) not being an authorized dealer of it’s concern , as such is not liable for his any acts also has denied the status of the Complainant as a consumer as has failed to produce an invoice with respect to the Purchase of the said Laptop but in spite of that as good gesture to maintain it’s reputation has offered him to provide the service but the Complainant has denied to avail the same with an unreasonable demand for replacement of the same with a new one , and further made an averment that for the first time on Dt.17.07.2017 he was made aware of with the alleged problem with the said Laptop and accordingly one service engineer was deputed immediately and also has resolved the issues of the same by replacing the Mother board and handed over him with same with a perfectly running condition and has alleged the Complainant to have suppressed the reply to his pleader notice ,And in support of his such averments has relied on some documents filed in shape of Annexure A to D . And also his representing counsel has filed a notes of argument relying on some citation of the some upper legal authoritarians and also vehemently pressed the matter before the Forum praying for dismissal of the case .
Having gone in details through the entire materials available in the record and on hearing the respective Counsels of the parties we are of the view that the case needs to be adjudicated on the following issues .
Whether the Complainant is a consumer in accordance with Consumer protection Act 1986 .
Whether there is deficiencies of service on the Part of the Opposite Parties.
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed by him .
On perusal of the Materials available in the record it came to our Notice that the Complainant has purchased a laptop manufactured by the manufacturing Company of the Opposite Party No.2(two) , from the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide an invoice vide No.64 on Dt.10.04.2017 for a consideration amount of Rs.31,000/-(Rupees thirty one thousand)only irrespective of the fact that whether it is from an authorized body or not as envisaged in the provision u/s 2 (d)i which reads as any person who buys goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system or deferred payment is a consumer and to our further observation the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted in his version and in furtherance to that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has also admitted in its version in different context that it has tried its best to give its service to resolve the issues with the said Laptop of the Complainant from where it can safely be concluded that the Complainant is a consumer keeping other factual aspect of the case in hand with regard to the other question of law and facts , hence in our view it is assertive to the question issues no.1 , accordingly it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the issues No.2 ,as to whether there is deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties , from our close observation and scrutiny of the entire materials available in the record admittedly the Complainant is a consumer for the purpose of the case but from the Complaint it self it reveals that the contention to the effect that he has complained before the Opposite Party No.1(one) with respect to the trouble with the Laptop and its service is self contradictory as in it’s Complaint he has alleged that on dt.15.07.2017 he found that the software of the said Laptop has been updated by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also subsequent to that he has sent his technician on Dt.04.08.2017 and they reported that mother board was defective and replaced the same , but in it’s Written arguments has clearly stated that the Opposite Party No.2(two) in response to his E-mail complain Dtd.09.07.2017, sent the technician on Dt.15.07.2017, and they verified the fault with the same and changed the mother board but still then it did not function well ,but it has been fortified by the job chart of the Opposite Party No.2(two) ,filed by him vide annexture B ,that the same has been conducted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) further more it reveals from the record that it has tried to extend it’s supportive service but it has been alleged to have been declined by the Complainant to which he has not rebuted in any manner from which it can be safely deducted that it has tried to render it’s supportive service , which is also substantiated by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in it’s version stating therein that though he has sold the said Laptop but it is only the Opposite Party No.2(two) who is to give service to its customer as he has not been authorized to undertake any repair in any manner , further more the Complainant has admitted the facts of the change of the Mother board. ,also it reveals from the materials available in the record the Opposite Party No.2(two) has tried further to extend it’s supportive service but there is no material from the side of the Complainant, And also it reveals from the record that the Complainant has suppressed the reply made by the Opposite Parties in response to his pleader Notice to them , and claiming thereby to file the case which in our view too is a suppression of materials fact before the Forum , in as much as the Complainant has not tried in any manner to prove that his said set of laptop is not running well in relation to the claim of the Opposite Party No.2(two), that the same was handed over to him with a running condition , and in it’s support of his case the Opposite Party No.2(two) has relied on a citation of the Honorable National Comission reported in (2006)CPJ in the case of Shiv Prasad industries Vrs.Senior machinery Company , So keeping in view the above narrated facts and circumstances we are of the view that the Complainant has measurably failed to prove his case against the Opposite Parties with regard to his allegation of deficiencies in rendering service to him, hence it is answered against the Complainant .
Thirdly with regard to the issues if the Complainant Is entitled to any relief , as we have already discussed the case in details in our foregoing paragraphs and have already opined against the Complainant , now it is obvious upon us to express our view in support of the Opposite Parties ,as the Complainant has failed measurably to make out a case of deficiencies in service against both of the Opposite Parties ,hence it is answered against the Complainant .
Hence the Complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Parties being devoid of merit and accordingly the case is dismissed against them,and the same is disposed off being pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.20/08/2018.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
