Delhi

StateCommission

A/485/2017

KISHOR KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROMA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MEGHA

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :17.10.2017

Date of Decision :24.10.2017

First Appeal No.485/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Kishor Kumar,

S/o. Shri  Suresh Kumar Jha,

R/o. D-21,  Civitech Sampriti,

Sector-77, Noida-201301.                                                                         ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

 

1. Croma (Mega Store),

RO-Bombay House, Homi Modi Street,

Mumbai-400001.

&Sales Office Croa, Plot No.C-53,

Preet Vihar, Main Vikas Marg,

Delhi-110091.                                                                                   ….Respondent no.1

 

2. M/s. Dell,

12/1,12/2A, Divya Shree Green, Phase-8,

Challghatta Village, Varthur Hobli,

Koramangala, Bangaluru, Karnatka-560071.                          ….Respondent no.2

 

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

 

Present:        Ms. Megha, counsel for the appellant.

 

 

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.07.2017, passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, East, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, holding no  deficiency on the part of CROMA and M/s. DELL, hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1 and 2 respectively, and dismissing the complaint no.888/2014 filed by Mr. Kishor Kumar, for short appellant, the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, assailing the said order, and praying for the relief as under:-

a)      Set aside the impugned judgement dated 12.07.2017 passed by the CDRF, Delhi in Consumers Complaint no.888/2014.

b)      Pass an order directing the respondent to :

i)       To refund the full amount of Rs.36,450/- (Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred fifty only) for purchase of the laptop.

ii)      To pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the appellant and his family members.

iii)     To pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) towards career impact caused to the appellant’s wife.

iv)     To pay an amount of Rs.10,050/- (Rupees ten thousand fifty only) towards the appellant’s IELTS test fee paid to IDP Education India, which was in October, 2014.

v)      To pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) towards the loss in delay of the VISA process of the appellant.

c)      Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.

Facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the appeal, are these.

The appellant had purchased a Laptop from the opposite party no.1 of the make of DELL on 17.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.36,450/- for self use and for the use of his wife. On the very first day the appellant noticed an inherent manufacturing defect in the Laptop so purchased inasmuch as the touchpad was not properly functioning. The defect noticed was brought home to the notice of the opposite party no.1 but much to their surprise and shock, no immediate relief, as could have been expected from the company of such a repute, was done. On continuous appeal  to them either to exchange the laptop or refund the money, no steps were taken either by the OP-1, to  whom they lodged the complaint or by the OP-2 to whom they contacted later on the recommendations of OP-1. It is only when the complaint was filed before the Distt. For a on 20.09.2014, the OP-2 agreed for the replacement of the laptop on 22.09.2014. However, much to the annoyance of the complainant even replaced laptop was not defect free. After a lot of correspondence, email and verbal discussion the laptop was replaced second time but again on this occasion there were complaints as in that there was screen flickering issue as if the  same was refurbished laptop. Again the OPs were approached but this time they agreed for repairing and not for the replacement. The allegation of the complainant is that he has been supplied a defective machine and thus deficient in the discharge of their duty.

In these circumstances  a complaint was filed before the Distt. For a, which complaint was dismissed observing that the respondents were not deficient in rendering the service. Appeal  has been preferred in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on  the ground that the Distt. For a has not considered the evidence adduced by them, nor they have evaluated the deficiency of service rendered. The legal issues have not been examined and thus the  impugned judgement is perversed on both facts and law. No proper appreciation of facts has been done by the Distt. Fora.

The appeal so filed came up for admission hearing on 17.10.2017 when the ld, counsel for the appellant appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

In the first instance we note that an application for condonation of delay of 67 days has been filed (page 100 of the paperbook). But we find that there is no delay. The impugned order was passed on 12.07.2017 which order was received by the appellant on 28.08.2017 and the appeal has been filed on 19.09.2017 which is within 30 days from the date of receipt of order. Section 15 of the Act posits as under:-

Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

 

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

 

The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that thirty days will count from the date of receipt of the order impugned herein. Applying the principle, the appeal filed on 19.09.2017 would be deemed to have been filed on time, since the order is stated  to have been received on 28.08.2017. Hence no orders are necessary to be passed on the application for condonation of delay.

Reverting back to the facts of the case, the ld. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the pleading of the case. We find that the OP was never deficient in rendering service to the appellant inasmuch as he replaced the machine twice when satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint. They were also prepared to repair the laptop even on third occasion where defect was reported.

The relief prayed for have been read and re read. Since the OP/ respondent are agreeable to the replacement/ repairing of the laptop there is no occasion for the refund of the amount spent for the purchase of the laptop. Secondly about the compensation, it is a settled position of law that the compensation claimed has to be reasonable and not exaggerated. Compensation has to be commensurate with lose or injury.

In the given case there is no loss, nor there exists deficiency. There exists not an iota of evidence showing the reluctance on the part of the opposite party in either replacing the instrument as and when demanded or repairing it. Under these circumstances no case is made out for awarding of any  compensation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order impugned herein and he uphold it.

We order accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order may be sent to the Distt. Fora for information.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

                  

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)