Punjab

StateCommission

FA/13/27

Supreme Infosys - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baldev Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Goel

15 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.27 of 2013                                                        

Date of institution  : 09.01.2013       

Date of decision     : 15.01.2015

 

Supreme Infosys, 5-A, New Sodhi Nagar, Moga, through its proprietor Jagdeep Singh s/o Mahla Singh, resident of New Sodhi Nagar, Moga.

…….Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Baldev Singh son of Surjan Singh (Employee of Nestle India Limited (Moga), resident of Dhalleke, Tehsil and District Moga.

 

……..Respondent/Complainant  

First Appeal against the order dated 10.12.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.   

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

      Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant       : Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate.

          For the respondent   : Shri R.S. Aulakh, Advocate.    

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

          The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Baldev Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the complainant was directed to hand over the laptop to the opposite party against receipt within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the opposite party was directed to set right the laptop to his satisfaction within 20 days of the date of receipt thereof.

2.      As per the allegations made by the complainant, in his complaint, he purchased one laptop from the opposite party, vide Bill dated 25.7.2011 for Rs.39,200/-.  After two months of the date of purchase, there was problem with the hard disc thereof and after two months thereof the screen of the laptop became out of order.   He visited the opposite party and disclosed the problem, who asked him to deposit Rs.3,800/- for the change of the screen.  After two months, the screen again became out of order and he again visited the opposite party with his laptop and the same was kept by it for one month. When he took the same back, there was problem of black dots in the screen.  He again visited the opposite party and disclosed the problem but it did not care for the same and also refused to issue the receipt for Rs.3,800/-, which was charged by it for the change of the screen.  Thus, the opposite party rendered deficient service, which caused great mental tension and harassment to him and for the same he is entitled to Rs.50,000/-, as compensation.   He prayed for the issuance of direction to the opposite party to pay that compensation and to replace the laptop or to refund Rs.39,200/-, which was received as the price thereof.

3.      The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing the written reply before the District Forum.   In that written reply it admitted that the complainant had purchased the laptop from it, vide bill dated 25.7.2011 for Rs.39,200/-.  It denied the other allegations made in the complaint and pleaded that the complainant never brought any such problem to its knowledge at any point of time during the warranty period.  It was not the service provider and if there was any manufacturing defect, then the manufacturer was liable to rectify the same.  The laptop comes with the onsite warranty for one year and the complainant could have lodged the complaint regarding the defect in the Unit directly to the Company toll free number.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and is not maintainable against it.  This product is well established product in the market and the complainant purchased the same after satisfying with the condition and the performance thereof.   The display issue had arisen when the Unit was out of warranty period.  No expert report from any appropriate Laboratory has been placed on the record for proving that the alleged problem is covered under the warranty conditions.   The warranty does not extend to the damage, which arises as a result of accident, misuse, abuse or other external causes.  It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.      Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6.      It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no such convincing evidence was produced by the complainant before the District Forum for proving that there was problem with the laptop during the warranty period or that there was any manufacturing defect therein.  In fact, this laptop was brought to it after the warranty period with the complaint of black dots in the screen.  After the expiry of the warranty period, it was not liable to rectify that problem free of cost.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The District Forum committed an illegality while allowing the complaint and issuing the direction to the opposite party to set right the laptop.  Such an order cannot be sustained.

7.      On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the complainant before the District Forum that just after two months of the purchase of the laptop, it developed a problem regarding the hard disc, which was set right by the opposite party but just after two months thereof there was a problem with the screen, which was replaced by the opposite party at the cost of Rs.3,800/-.  It also stands proved from that evidence that just after two months the screen again developed defect and thereafter the problem was not rectified by the opposite party.  The opposite party failed to rebut that evidence, which is oral as well as documentary.   As the problem was brought to the notice of the opposite party before the expiry of the warranty period, so it cannot take the excuse that the problem is to be rectified at the cost of the complainant himself.  There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned order recorded by the District Forum.  

8.      In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.A-1.  From that affidavit, it cannot be made out that the complainant had deposited Rs.3,800/- with the opposite party for rectification of the defect in the hard disc and the screen.  In para No.4 of the affidavit, he deposed that he visited the opposite party and told him about the problem regarding the hard disc and the screen and it told him to deposit Rs.3,800/- for the change of the screen.  In the next para he deposed that after two months the screen again became out of order.  He did not depose in his affidavit that he had deposited Rs.3,800/- with the opposite party and the defects were rectified.   The other evidence produced by him consists of the letters dated 15.9.2011 and 3.10.2011 Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-3, respectively. The complainant did not depose in his affidavit that these letters were sent by him to the opposite party nor he proved on record any postal receipt or the certificate of posting, on the basis of which it may be concluded that these were sent to the opposite party on the said two dates.  Such like letters can be fabricated at any time.  Moreover, the contents of these letters are in contradiction to the allegations made in the complaint.  As per the Bill Ex.A-2, the complainant had purchased the laptop from the opposite party on 25.7.2011.  In the first letter dated 15.9.2011, Ex.A-4, he stated that the laptop was not working properly as there was problem with the hard disc.  Neither he alleged in his complaint nor he deposed in his affidavit that the said problem was rectified by the opposite party.  In the second letter dated 3.10.2011, Ex.A-3, he stated that there was problem with the hard disc as well as the screen.  In his complaint, he alleged that after two months of the first problem, the screen had developed the defect, which is in total contradiction to the contents of these letters as, as per those contents the problem developed with the screen just after two months and ten days of the purchase of the laptop.

9.      The best for the complainant was to examine some expert for proving that there was defect/manufacturing defect in the laptop.  No such expert was examined by him.  In the absence of the examination of any such expert, it cannot be held that there was a defect or manufacturing defect in the laptop.

10.    It is very much clear from the Bill dated 25.7.2011, Ex.A-2, that the warranty are bases on carry on (No On Site) and the warranties are of Manufacturer’s Warranties.  In these circumstances, the complainant was required to file this complaint against the manufacturer also, as he wants the replacement of the laptop itself.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer.   The opposite party proved on record the warranty documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6.  As per the terms and conditions of the Warranty, if the complainant wanted to obtain warranty service, then he was required to approach the manufacturer online or he was to contact its Technical Support by telephone.  At no stage the complainant approached the manufacturer by any of those means.  As per those terms and conditions, the manufacturer was not liable for damages occurring as a result of the failure to follow the instructions, those come with the product itself.  It is not the case of the complainant that he had followed all those instructions and still the problem was there in the product.  The warranty was for one year, two years or three years or a number of years marked on the serial number label.  In order to prove that the warranty was for more than one year the complainant was required to disclose the serial number of his product in his complaint but he failed to do so.  The present complaint was filed after one year of the date of the purchase and that proves the case of the opposite party that the complainant never approached it within the warranty period.

11.    In all these circumstances, the District Forum was not justified in issuing the direction to the opposite party to set right the laptop.  Such an order cannot be sustained.

12.    In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  

13.    The sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties.

14.    The arguments in this case were heard on 09.01.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

15.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                                                                                         (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                       (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January  15 , 2015                                                                                                                               MEMBER

Bansal