STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Fastrack Computing Ltd., SCO No.63 (1^st Floor), Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director, Iqbal Singh

……Appellant/OP

V E R S U S

Dhup Singh son of Ramji Lal, Head Constable, Basic Training Centre, NTCD & A, ITBP, Bhanu, P.O. Bhanu, Distt. Panchkula.

              ....Respondent/complainant

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

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          None.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.2.2011 rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the appellant/OP to get the defective desktop repaired and deliver it to the complainant after making it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging anything and to pay to the complainant Rs.7,500/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OP was liable to pay the compensation alongwith penal interest @ 18% per annum since the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.10.2010 till the order was fully complied, besides payment of litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an HCL Desktop from OP vide cash invoice dated 27.5.2010 for Rs.24,200/-.  However, from the date of installation, there was some technical/manufacturing fault in it, for the repair of which he lodged complaints.  The repair was done twice from OP as well as from the HCL Computer Care but still the computer could not be set right.  He visited the OP many times and requested for replacement but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  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 referred to as the Act) was filed.

2.                      In their written reply the OP admitted the sale of the desktop computer in question to the complainant.  However, it was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the same. It was submitted that the OP was only the sale centre of HCL and had nothing to do with the service of computer after sale.  It was stated that the complainant was advised to visit and contact the HCL Computer Care Centre, but he has neither arrayed HCL Computer Ltd. nor the service station of HCL who were the necessary parties.  Remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

3.                      Parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                      After hearing the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for the OP and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

5.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.

6.                      Since nobody appeared on behalf of any of the parties, we have gone through the record ourselves in order to decide the appeal in the absence of the parties.

7.                      From the grounds of appeal, as well as from the written reply filed by the appellant, it is admitted that the desktop computer was sold by it to the complainant/respondent on 27.5.2010 for Rs.24,200/-. It was admitted in para 4 & 5 of the reply that whenever the complainant visited the appellant he was advised to visit HCL Computer Care Centre which means that the complainant has been approaching the OP/appellant regarding the defect in the computer.  The case of the appellant is that it is only a sale centre of the HCL Computers and has nothing to do with after sales service for which a separate Care Centre has been established.  The OP/appellant, however, did not mention the address of the said Computer Care Centre nor was anything mentioned in the receipt/invoice as to who is the manufacturer of the goods sold by it, what is their address and in case of a problem where the service would be carried out.  In the absence of these facts, the purchaser was within his rights to approach the seller if there was any defect in the goods.  Furthermore, because a defective computer has been sold, which started giving troubles from the date of its sale, the complainant was to approach the OP/appellant to apprise him about the defects but instead of rectifying the same, or getting it rectified from their service centre, the OP tried to evade its responsibility by telling the complainant, that he should approach the Computer Care Centre for service.  The sale of a defective computer cannot be justified by the seller on any such ground that a separate Care Centre has been established for service.  It was the duty of the seller/appellant to get it repaired if there was any defect in the goods sold by it.

8.                      It has been mentioned by the appellant/OP that the HCL Company and the HCL Computer Care Centre were necessary parties in the complaint.  In view of the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paras, the non joining of the manufacturer, or the service centre, could not be sufficient to dismiss the compliant.

9.                      It is also mentioned by the appellant that there is no technical report or opinion report produced by the appellant and, therefore, the computer cannot be said to be defective merely on the asking of the complainant. This argument also cannot be accepted.  We have gone through the reply filed by the appellant/OP in which there is no mention if the desktop computer is not defective. This fact is rather admitted by the appellant in para 4 & 5 of the reply that the complainant visited their office and was advised to visit and contact the HCL Computer Care Centre.  These contentions amply prove that the desktop computer was not working properly.  In fact, the OP/appellant has led no evidence to deny this assertion made in the complaint. 

10.                   The appellant in para 6 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that the desktop computer is still under warranty period and any defect could be rectified or repaired/replaced by the company (HCL).  He has not mentioned what is the address of the said company where the complainant was supposed to approach.  Otherwise also, the privity of contract is primarily between the complainant and the OP and it would be the responsibility of the appellant/OP to get the computer repaired or replaced, if there is any such defect in it. The OP/appellant may lateron sort out the matter with the manufacturer in case the OP/appellant was directed by the Consumer Fora to perform any of the functions.  Their contention in para 2 was that they have no role to play after the sale of the desktop computer.  This contention cannot be accepted because the complainant came in contact with the OP/appellant and it is the OP from whom the desktop computer was purchased and, therefore, the OP would be liable if there is any defect in the same.  If they have sold a defective desktop computer, they are bound to repair it and if they fail to repair, they are bound to refund the amount and take back the defective computer. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the harassment caused to him by not promptly repairing the computer and since they thrust this unnecessary litigation on the complainant/respondent, the appellant is also bound to pay litigation expenses.

11.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.  There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

19^th August, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg