Orissa

Cuttak

CC/144/2019

Prativa Pujari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ferns Icon - Opp.Party(s)

R C Mohapatra

06 Apr 2022

ORDER

                IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.144/2019

            Prativa Pujari,

Plot No.3E/404,Sector-IX,

C.D.A,Cuttack-753014..                                                         ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Ferns ICON,Level-2,Outer Ring Road,

Doddankhudi,Bengaluru,Karnataka,

PIN-560037.

 

2.        Authorized Authority,Tanikshas E-World,

B-19-B/19,Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswsar,

Dist:Khurda.... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasis Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing  :  05.11.2019

Date of Order: 06.04.2022

 

For the complainant: Sri Raicharan Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 :       Sri M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:         Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                The case record is put up today for orders.

The case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details is that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo Laptop  80 XL03MNN(C15/8/2TB/2W10 bearing Sl. No.PFOVUZHE with accessories from the shop of the O.P No.2 on 8.12.2017 by paying a sum of Rs.52,000/-.  The said Laptop had warranty period covering up to 19.1.2021.  But, time and again the said Laptop was found to be defective and was being repaired repeatedly by the O.P No.2.  Ultimately, being dissatisfied with the service rendered towards repair of the said defective Laptop, the complainant had issued legal notice to both the O.Ps as because though repaired, the substituted part used under repair by the O.Ps in the Laptop of the complainant was not carrying any warranty.  As such the complainant has claimed the present case of the Laptop to the extent of Rs.52,000/-, a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards his mental agony and a damage for the misbehaviour of the team of engineers from the side of the O.P to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.            Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their respective written versions.  As per the written version of the O.P No.1, the averments as made in the complaint petition are all denied to be false and baseless.  According to O.P.1, there was no deficiency in service or cheating by them.  According to the O.P.1, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the Laptop.  His Laptop was repaired free of cost being under warranty.  Thus, there was no negligence or deficiency in service by them.  As it appears from the written version submitted on behalf of O.P.1 during second visit of the complainant the defective part was replaced and the issue was resolved after which the Laptop machine was handed over to the complainant in working condition.  Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint as filed by the complainant.

3.            Likewise, O.P No.2 in his written version has stated that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by them.  The O.P.2 has also challenged the jurisdiction of this court since because the O.P.2 being the dealer is situated at Bhubaneswsar in the district of Khordha where the cause of action arose.  It is further averred in the written version of O.P.2 that since when it is alleged by the complainant that there was manufacturing defect  in the Laptop in question as purchased by the complainant, O.P.2 is not a necessary party for which the case against O.P.2 is liable to be dismissed being mis-joinder of necessary party.  In the written version, O.P.2 admits about the purchase of Lenovo Laptop dt.8.12.2017 by the complainant and the complainant approached the O.P on 10.12.2018 for general check-up and minor repair.  The complainant collected his Laptop on 20.1.2019.  As per the version of O.P.2, O.P.1 had deputed service engineer on 10.11.2018 and 24.11.2018 to look into the defect in the said Laptop.  According to O.P.2, Laptop of the complainant was repaired and handed over in perfect working condition for which the allegations made by the complainant do not hold good.

4.            Perused the entire case record and the connecting documents as available therein.  It is noticed that the following issues require to be settled in this case by this Commission.

                1.    If this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed?

2.    If there was defective service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. No.1 & 2 in    this case?

                3.    If the complainant is entitled to the claims as prayed by him in the complaint petition?

Issue No.1:

                Since the O.Ps do not insist or raise this issue while advancing argument, this issue requires no answer.

Issue No.2:

                When both the O.Ps admit that there was defect noticed in the Lenovo Laptop which was purchased by the complainant and it was subject to repair, it can never be said that there was fair trade dealt by both the O.Ps.  When the complainant himself is not satisfied with the service rendered to him in repairing the defective Laptop purchased by him, the plea of both the O.Ps that there was no defective service and that there was no unfair trade practice does not hold good.  Accordingly issue NO.2 is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.3:

While advancing their respective arguments in this case, the complainant concedes to the submissions as made by the O.P.2 that the Laptop in question is now functional but lacks warranty. But he had warranty while purchasing the said laptop.  O.P.2 also concedes that there was warranty for 5 years during purchase of the said laptop and there was extended warranty also.  The complainant has apprehended that if at all in future there would be any trouble or defect because of purchase of Lenovo Laptop he will be subjected to inconvenience and mental agony.  As such, this Commission feels it proper to direct the O.Ps in order to provide warranty to the replaced part of the said Lenovo Laptop from the date of its replacement.  Further, since because the complainant was made to run time and again carrying the defective Lenovo Laptop to the O.Ps for its repair. Undoubtedly he had suffered mental agony and stress.  But when the Lenovo Laptop in question is now functional and the complainant is not unhappy with it, it is felt by this Commission that there should be no award towards any cost. 

                                                                                ORDER

 The O.Ps have thus directed to comply the order of this Commission by providing warranty to the replaced part of the Laptop in question belonging to the complainant from the date of its replacement with immediate effect within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 6^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                     President

.

 

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.