Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/2/2018

St. Kabir Public School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Beyond Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgotia, Adv.

16 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	2 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	04.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	16.01.2018

 

St. Kabir Public School, Sector 26, Chandigarh c/o Kabir Educational Society, through its Administrator, Sh. Gurpreet Bakshi.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1.     M/s Beyond Computers, SCO 371-372, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

2.     Mr. I.P. Singh, Proprietor, M/s Beyond Computers, SCO 371-372, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

3.     M/s Dell India Pvt. Ltd., No.12/1, 12/2-a & 13/1-a, Ground Floor, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Domlur, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560071, through its M.D.

4.     M/s Ingram Micro India Ltd., SCO 60, IInd Floor, Sector 47C, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.

5.     M/s Ingram Micro India Ltd., Godrej IT Park, B-Block, 5th Floor, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079, through its M.D.

…. Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

Argued by:

Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

              This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 28.11.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.4 of 2016 filed by it (complainant) was partly allowed against the Opposite Parties, in the following manner:-

“13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the machines in question i.e. Rs.6,84,600/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 26.8.2013 (date of purchase) till realization.  However, the complainant shall handover all the machines, including those provided as standby, to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused to it;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

14.  This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that for the purpose of enhancing education of its students, the complainant - school bought 40 sets of WYSE thin client T 50 from the Opposite Parties by paying Rs.6,84,600/- but they started malfunctioning within a short period as THIN CLIENT’s started hanging-up during login and also during working on the applications, due to which, the students were unable to perform any work. The said hardware problem was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, upon which, their officials/engineers visited the school several times and committed to replace the same vide their email dated 17.2.2014 and also promised to supply the standby machines so that the education of the students did not suffer, but, all their promises turned out to be false.  The complainant vide email dated 1.5.2014, requested the Opposite Parties to refund the amount and also served a legal notice dated 17.6.2014 but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

3.         Opposite Parties No.1&2 did not appear despite due service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte by the Forum vide order dated 30.3.2016.    

4.   Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement, admitted that the complainant purchased 40 sets of T50 from Opposite Party No.1 after being satisfied from the demo given. It was stated that the complainant did not consult for setup/recommendation i.e. which product would be advisable keeping in view that the lab was already working and servers, CRTs etc. were already installed. It was further stated that thin client is     user end device of what is operating on the server and the servers used by the complainant were of HP. It was further stated that all consultation and recommendations were by Opposite Party No.1. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the products and, therefore, the question of replacement did not arise. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         Opposite Parties No.4 & 5, in their joint written statement, denied that they sold any product to the complainant or installed the same.  It was stated that they were not connected with the sale or after sale services of the alleged computers purchased by the complainant. It was denied that any engineer of the Opposite Parties inspected the computer lab of the school and gave assurance with regard to usability and suitability of the products. It was also denied that any commitment was made by the Opposite Parties for any kind of replacement. It was stated that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.4 & 5, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Forum partly allowed the complaint against the Opposite parties, as stated above.

8.          Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

9.         We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.       During arguments, Counsel for the appellant/complainant stated that the Forum while allowing the complaint and ordering refund, erred in granting lesser rate of interest i.e. 6% p.a.. The Counsel argued that at least interest @12% or 15% should have been granted by the Forum.

11.       The Forum in Para 12 of the impugned order held as under:-

 

“12. A perusal of the email (Annexure C-3) makes it crystal clear that the complainant wrote on 17.12.2014 after getting harassed at the hands of the OPs for the replacement of the machines at the earliest and on the same day OP-1 replied to the complainant that the company has agreed to replace the same and is sending more standby machines for the time being. At page 22 OP-3 also wrote to the complainant after making visit of its engineers and apologized for the delay in writing the summary of its observation.  At page 23, there is detailed mention of the problem description and steps that OP-3 tried.  Even feedback by the customer i.e. complainant has been mentioned in this email depicting the hanging problem while working on the machines.  Through this email OP-3 apprised the complainant that it is working to resolve the issue and as an immediate resolution, it is arranging couple of more S10 devices.  Again on page 25 OP-3 gave the observation after inspecting the machines that the lab server of the complainant was infected with lots of virus and it was taking steps to detect the problem after scanning the server, meaning thereby OP-3, being the manufacturer of the machines in question, was well versed with the problem faced by the students at the school of the complainant, but, no specific/authentic solution was provided to resolve/redress the grievance of the complainant. Rather, the process of email communication kept on continuing for a long time without any fruitful results. We are of the opinion that school is an organization not only to impart education to the students/children, but, also make effort for their harmonious development.  In the present scenario, when the competition is so high amongst the students to achieve the best to meet their goals, the complainant invested a hefty amount of Rs.6,84,600/- for the purchase of the machines for a noble cause for enhancing the education of the students, but, the whole purpose of purchasing the machines got defeated and even after investing such a huge amount, the complainant school had to face failure of its effort as the machines in question did not work properly.  The complainant despite spending a lot of time and energy had to suffer harassment at the hands of the OPs as they failed to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.”

 

12.       The appellant/complainant school bought 40 (Forty) sets of WYSE THIN CLIENT T50 from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 26.08.2013 for a total sum of Rs.6,84,600/- (Annexure C-2). The case of the appellant/complainant before the Forum was that the product - WYSE THIN CLIENT T50 started malfunctioning within a short period. The problem for the first time, as per evidence on record, occurred on 31.01.2014 (Annexure C-3 at Page 31 of the complaint file). It means that the product provided, functioned for about five months and the appellant/complainant school utilized the same during the aforesaid period, whereas the Forum awarded interest from the date of purchase i.e. w.e.f. 26.08.2013. In the facts and circumstances of the case, refund of the amount alongwith interest @6%, as ordered by the Forum, is just and adequate. No case or else justification is made out to enhance the same.  

13.         In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.       No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.

15.           In view of above, the appeal is dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the Forum is upheld.

16.       Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

 

17.       File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

16.01.2018.

 (DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad