Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

EA/19/14

MR ABHAY CHHABRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELL COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Chhabra

13 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Execution Application No. EA/19/14
( Date of Filing : 21 Jun 2019 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/15/156
 
1. MR ABHAY CHHABRA
Flat No 1303, A Wing, Shiv Surshti, Satya Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai
Mumbai
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DELL COMPANY
2ND FLOOR TRADE BUILDING LOWER PAREL,MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
2. ALFA (DISTRIBUTOR OF RES NO 1)
116, OSCAR HOUSE, IRLA COC, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
3. MR. SACHIN REKHI
SERVICE PROVIDER, R/O ANDHERI, MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 13 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

         Per-MR.M.P.KASAR MEMBER,

         ORDER BELOW EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.19-14      

  1. Execution Application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act arising out of First Appeal No.A/17/561 order dated 29/11/2018 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai.
  2. We perused order passed by Hon’ble State Commission in A/17/561  arisen out of judgement and order dated 08/02/2017 passed by the Ld. Central Mumbai District Forum in CC/156/2015  vide dated 29/11/2018  Hon’ble State Commission held that , ‘ In our view, the laptop when admittedly sold by Dell Company through its Dealer for Rs.47,800/- had developed problem within warranty period, it is obligatory on the part of opponent through its service provider to repair the laptop so as to put it in proper working condition. If it is within warranty period no charge can be levied, as in the present case the problem was developed during the warranty period. We therefore, allow this appeal and partly allow the complaint accordingly, impugned Judgement and order is set aside, No order as to cost.’
  1. It is noted that, the order in question passed in  first appeal was announced in the presence of the counsel of opposite party No.2.but  miserable failed to repaired the laptop in question .So according to the Applicant this execution application be proceeds against the opposite parties.
  1. Applicant is remained absent  from long time
  1. Accused No.3 filed application  for disposal of the present execution proceedings vide dated 18/08/2022 stating that, the final order of the Hon’ble State Commission in A/17/561 has been complied with in 2021 and the decree holder has duly received are refund INR 47800/- which were made in two transactions amounting to INR 43339/- & INR 4461/-each. The email confirmation of such transactions and their receipt by the applicant are marked and annexed herein as Annexure A. It is stated that grave harm and irreparable injury would be caused to he accused/opposite party No.1 if the said proceedings are not disposed of so dispose these proceedings and pass such orders as this commission may deem fit.
  1. Said application kept for say of Applicant since from 18/08/2022 but applicant remained absent and did not appear in the execution application from long time and it observed from the perusal of all roznama.
  1. We perused annexure A submitted with application filed vide dated 18/08/2022 and observed that, vide email correspondence dated 21/10/2021 applicant have informed that he received the amount.
  1. Considering this documentary matrix presented on record by opposite parties it is appearing that applicant have  received amount Rs.47800/- which were made in two transactions amounting to INR 43339/- and 4461/- each. Thus it is observing that, opposite parties has complied the order of Hon’ble State Commission which is under execution. As said order has been compiled by the opposite parties and there is not any non compliances on part of opposite parties then it will be justifiable to discharge accuse persons from the guilt of section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.So we pass order as follows:-

           ORDER

  1. Application  filed vide dated by accused dated 18/08/2022  is hereby allowed
  2. Accused No.1 to 3 is hereby discharged from the accusation below section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
  3.  In view of order No.2 EA/14/19 disposed of and all Personal Bond/Surety Bonds furnished if any by the accused are cancelled.
  4. No order as to cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.