The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Esquare Technologies, Motiganj Bazar, Balasore, O.P No.2 is Micro Computers, Bhadrak and O.P No.3 is HCL Infosystems Ltd., Elliot Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata.
1. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant purchased one HCL Computer from O.P No.1 vide invoice No.7085, dt.09.01.14 for a consideration amount of Rs.28,000/-. But after 4 months, the said Computer did not function properly, for which the Complainant approached O.P No.1 for eradication of defects, as detected there in. Thereafter, the O.P No.1 referred the matter to O.P No.2. The Technical staff of O.P No.2 repaired the defect of HCL Computer by replacing the H.D.D. Thereafter, the Technical staff of O.P No.2 repaired the same Computer by changing the mother board in another occasion, as per complaint lodged by the Complainant. But, despite repair of the said Computer by the O.P No.2 in different occasion, the Computer did not function properly, for which the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and O.P No.2 for replacement/ repair of the same, which was strongly refused by them. Prayer for repair/ replacement of the defective HCL Computer and compensation towards mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.
The O.P No.2 did not appear in this case, for which the O.P No.2 is set ex-parte on 04.07.2016.
2. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has admitted that they have attended all the complaint lodged by the Complainant, as per Company’s norms from time to time. Further, they have admitted that they have not violated the terms and conditions of the warranty. Time and again the Computer shows its defectiveness, due to wrong handling of the Computer.
3. Written version filed by the O.P No.3 through their Advocate, where they have also denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action.
4. On perusal of the case record and documents filed by both the contesting Parties, it is noticed that:-
(i) Within the period from 07.05.2014 to 06.01.2016, the Complainant has made complaint before O.P No.1, for repair of his defective Computer in eight occasions, which are duly attended by them. In addition, within a span of 1 year and eight months, the defective Computer of the Complainant is kept by the O.P No.1 for about 106 days i.e. 3.5 months for repair, which is also admitted by the O.P No.1 and O.P No.3 in their written version filed by them respectively. During the time of repair, the O.P No.1 has replaced Mother board, 2GB DDR-3 RAM, 500GB HDD, H61 MBD, SMPS and 18.5’’ TFT. Moreover, the Mother board has been replaced by the O.P No.1 in three occasions.
(ii) The Complainant has submitted in Para-6 of his complaint filed in this case is that “Lastly on dt.06.12.2015, the Complainant went to the O.P No.1 & 2 and requested to replace/ repair the said HCL Infosystem (Computer) as per warranty condition, but the O.P No.1 & 2 strongly refused to replace/ repair the same, for which finding no other way, the Complainant filed this case for necessary relief against the O.Ps. But written version filed by the O.P No.3, where they have admitted that Mother board and SMPS were replaced by them on 06.01.2016 vide complain dt.19.12.2015 and 18.5” TFT was replaced on 19.01.2016 vide complain dt.06.01.2016, which is not disputed by the Complainant.
(iii) The O.P No.3 vide their written version filed in this case, where they have admitted that “Their group Company extended technical supports to the specified problem of the Complainant and accordingly, the problem has been sought out with immediate effect in time bound manner within warranty period. They have also admitted that within a span of 20 months period, the Computer was retained by the O.Ps for 106 days for different type of repair and replacement of accessories.
(iv) In view of the above background of the case, it has been submitted by the Advocate of the Complainant that during pendency of this Consumer case, the Petitioner has already repaired his defective Computer from one “Maa Computers”, a Computer repairing establishment without permission of the Court or intimation to the Forum thereafter. The invoice dt.30.10.2016 has been filed, which does not disclose the Sl. No. of the Computer, but it stands in the name of one Sahil Kumar Dash, the Complainant claim that Sahil Kumar Dash to be his son, but no material evidence has been filed regarding such relation.
However as admitted, the fact remains that the Computer is already repaired through a 3rd Party. And in the instant case, the material shows that O.Ps have taken steps for repair of the Computer on different occasions to which the Complainant was not satisfied. So in the circumstances, we, the Forum come to the conclusion that Computer repaired by the O.Ps, it was not to the satisfaction of the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps jointly and severally and also for causing mental agony to the Complainant, for which the Complainant is entitled for relief in this regard. Taking into consideration of the materials available and special circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.1,000/- for deficiency-in-service and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice, which is to be borne by the O.Ps. Hence Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- for deficiency-in-service and a sum of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within one month henceforth, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 22nd day of February, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
