BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 20^th February 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.25/2014

(Admitted on 17.01.2014)

Mrs. Merlin Pais,

W/o Melwin P. Periera,

Aged about 40 years,

R/at Santhosh Sadan,

Adyar Padav House,

Adyar Post, Mangalore.

                                                            ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KSNR)

VERSUS

1. The Authorized Signatory,

    Manhars,

    Deepa Paradise,

    Collecters Gate,

    Balmatta, Mangalore.

2. The Authroized Signatory,

    Impact,

    Manhars,

    Deepa Paradise,

    Collecters Gate,

    Balmatta, Mangalore.

3. Dell Laptop,

    Head Office, Divyasree Greens,

    Ground Floor,

    12.1, 12/2A, 13/1A,

    Challaghatta Viallge, Varthur Hubli,

    Bangalore, Karnataka.

                                                       ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: Ex parte)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri KGS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims she purchased a Dell Inspiron laptop from opposite party No.1 on 19.11.2012 but as on the same day fault was found in the lap top she immediately approached opposite party No.1 who replaced it and replacing one of same model a few days later complainant found fault in that lap tap as well and handed over it to opposite party No.2 for repair but did not return the same.  However the problem recurred.  The complainant returned the laptop to repair.   Opposite party No.2 in spite of demands complainant was forced to purchase a new laptop and had to pay unnecessary when there was no laptop to the broadband internet connection  obtained to BSNL on purchasing the lap top hence seeks direction to opposite parties to refund the price of laptop and compensation and cost.

II.    Opposite party No.3’s contending there is no cause of action against opposite party No.3.  The complainant had deliberately concealed various material facts how the cause of action arise as not stated.  The complainant even as per the complainant contended she contacted opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 on every occasion had never contacted opposite party No.3 for any issue nor complaint was filed to opposite party No.3.   Hence there is no question of deficiency of service of opposite party No.3.  Opposite party No.3 is still ready and willing to resolve issue if any if complainant so desires hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

2.     In support of the above complainant Mrs. Merlin Pais filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C6 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties not filed affidavit evidence.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

         The learned counsels for complainant filed notes of arguments.   Opposite party No.3 not filed any notes of arguments nor addressed the arguments.  We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows

                       Point No. (i) : Affirmative

                       Point No.  (ii): Negative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No.(i):  The purchase of laptop in question by complainant from opposite party No.1 and that the opposite party No.2 service the same when repairs required and that it was also brand name of opposite party No.2 is also not in dispute.   Hence there is relationship of consumer and service provider between them. The complainant claims that the lap top was though serviced by opposite party No.2 on a number of occasion and the problems recurred was not replaced by opposite party No.3.   Hence there is dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2(1) (e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

 POINTS No.(ii):   The document produced by the complainant was not marked earlier hence it is now marked at Ex.C1 to C6 for reference.  The invoice Ex.C1 is purchase of the product mentions shows the detail of purchase at 19^th November 2012.  Ex.C3 is the service call report issued by opposite party No.2.  It is dated 12.9.2013 it mentions that issued in respect of as mother board problem mic checking.  There are no other documents produced to show any other complaints lodged by complainant with any of the opposite parties’ even though complainant mentions of repeated complaints lodged.  In fact Ex.C4 is letter dated 19.11.2013 it was addressed to opposite party No.1 and Ex.C5 is also letter address to opposite party No.1 by complainant.   Even according to complainant as seen from the reply given to the interrogatories of opposite party No.3 complainant admits that she has not lodged any complaint with opposite party No.3 about the defects in the lap top.  Opposite party No.3 being the manufacture no complaint is lodged.   The primary liability being of the manufacturer opposite party No.3 within the specified period of warranty no intimation was given to opposite party No.3 of defects.   Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant’s claim that the lap top purchased by her from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.3 had problems and unattended problems in our view is not established.  Hence complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party No.3.  Hence we answer point No.3 in the negative.

 POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                              The Complaint is dismissed.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

          (Page No.1 to 5 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th February 2017)

              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

  (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)           (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum              D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mrs. Merlin Pais

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 19.11.2012: Original copy of Tax in Voice/Bill, issued  by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.C2: 19.11.2012: Original copy of Tax in Voice/Bill, issued by the 1^st opposite party

  Ex.C3: 12.09.2013: Original copy of Service call report, issued  By the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.C4: 19.11.2013: Copy of notice, issued to the opposite party No.1

Ex.C5: 19.12.2013: Copy of notice, issued to the opposite party  No.1

Ex.C6: 21.12.2013: Original Postal Acknowledgement

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil 

Dated: 20.02.2017                                     PRESIDENT