Tripura

StateCommission

A/19/2021

Shri Prasenjit Biswas - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP Services - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No. A.19.2021

 

 

 

1. Sri Prasenjit Biswas,

S/o Late P.K. Biswas,

C/o Indra Mohan Debbarma,

Resident of Biswas House at Malanchanagar,

Kunjavan, P.O. Kunjavan, NCC P.S. Agartala,

District - West Tripura, 799006.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

 

Vs

 

 

1. HP Services,

C/o M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. 

Old Colonel House (Singhapara), 45 HGB Road,

Post Office Chowmuhani, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                                      In person

For the Respondent:                                                  Mr. Loknath Datta, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                                        13.07.2021.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                                 28.07.2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by Sri Prasenjit Biswas against the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.47 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that the complainant, the appellant herein, failed to prove his case by way of adducing sufficient evidence in support of the allegation.

2. Heard Sri Prasenjit Biswas, the appellant appearing in person (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Loknath Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, HP Services (hereinafter referred to as opposite party).
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Prasenjit Biswas, gave his HP Laptop Computer No.CND4338HZ on 2^nd May, 2019 to the opposite party i.e. HP Services for minor repairing works after encountering a problem with the computer that it could not be charged and it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. After a few days i.e. on 6^th May, 2019, the service firm had returned the laptop along with a bill from which it was found that the firm had charged an amount of Rs.8000/- for “New Display, Motherboard repair with services and diagnosed charged”. After getting back the laptop, it was found that many letters of the keyboard of the said laptop viz. 'O' and 'H' did not work, one of the USB ports did not work besides there was major fault in keypad/ keyboard for which multiple letters appeared on the screen without any key being pressed. Thus, it became clear that the laptop which was in immaculate condition before repairs with a small problem that it could not be charged was completely damaged by this firm in the name of repairs through their act of cheating and deceit. Thereafter, the complainant issued a letter on 30^th May, 2019 to the said service provider firm through Postal Dak and the same was communicated to them. The opposite party confirmed they have received the said communication through mail. Thereafter, through a messenger sent the complainant parts of damaged keyboard etc. purportedly replaced by them with two Tax Invoices dated 6^th May, 2019 and 21^st May, 2019 respectively for Rs.8,000/- (already paid) and another Rs.1,700/- to be paid in addition. It is evident that the opposite party damaged the laptop in the name of repairs and charged exorbitant amount through deceit and had the guts to demand more money in the name of repairs after receiving money in the name of “diagnose charged”. The complainant waited patiently for last about a month with the expectation that good sense would prevail and the firm shall refund the money taken by them through deceit without actually providing the requisite services.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned District Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices and claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony from the opposite party.

4. The learned District Commission on admission of the complaint petition issued notice upon the respondent-opposite party.
5. The respondent-opposite party appeared and submitted written statement by one Biswanath Chakraborty on behalf of the opposite party, HP Services, C/o M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. In the written statement it is stated that there was no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-opposite party and the complaint petition is filled with false and fabricated story. It is further stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are totally false and finally challenged the maintainability of the complaint petition.
6. Complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and submitted his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit. In support of his case, he submitted five documents viz. the Photo copy of the bill No.267 dated 06.05.2019, Copy of the letter of the complainant dated 30^th May, 2019, e-mail of the Firm dated 3^rd June, 2019 responding to the letter dated 30^th May, 2019, Received challan dated 16.05.2019 and Tax Invoices dated 06.05.2019 & 21.05.2019 which were marked as Exhibit-1 series. The complainant was also cross-examined by the opposite party side.
7. On the other hand, opposite party examined one witness, namely, Sri Biswanath Chakraborty, C/o M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. who was also cross-examined by the complainant. The opposite party produced eight documents i.e. Copy of receive dated 06.05.2019 and Scamper Technologies, Copy of bill dated 06.05.2019, Copy of received dated 16.05.2019 of the Firm, Copy of tax invoice dated 06.05.2019, Copy of tax invoice dated 21.05.2019, Original copy of authorized letter, Copy of e-mail text dated 21.05.2019 and Copy of e-mail dated 03.06.2019 downloaded from net which were marked as Exhibit-A series.
8. The learned District Commission after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
9. Sri Biswas, the appellant-complainant in person while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Commission did not consider some documents particularly, the letter of the complainant dated 06.05.2019 as well as the reply of the HP Services Centre at Agartala, the respondent-opposite party dated 3^rd June, 2019 while passing the impugned judgment. He also submits that it is also evident from the receipt/challan issued by the respondent-opposite party, M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 16.05.2019 wherein it is mentioned that they had received the laptop from the complainant. He further submits that there is document either submitted by the complainant or by the opposite party that the Smt. Falguni Biswas is the owner of the laptop. According to him, initially, the laptop was given for servicing to the opposite party by his wife, Smt. Falguni Biswas and thereafter, again the laptop was given to the service centre by the complainant himself which will be evident from the bill dated 06.05.2019 (Exhibit-1 series). Thus, the finding of the learned District Commission regarding ownership of laptop is an erroneous one. He again submits that the written statement filed by one Biswajit Chakraborty cannot be treated either written objection or written statement by the opposite party, HP Services as the same is not signed by the opposite party. More so, the said Biswajit Chakraborty did not file any authorization letter in support of his contention. He finally submits that he is a ‘consumer’ as he is using the laptop which was handed over to the opposite party and not only that, in the written statement filed by Biswajit Chakraborty, there is no mention anywhere that the complainant is not a customer. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on a judgment dated 30.10.1992 of Hon’ble Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dinesh Bhagat Vs Bajaj Auto Limited.
10. Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the complainant is not the owner of the laptop which was given to the opposite party for repairing. He has also submitted that the complainant is not the consumer, but he has admitted the fact that the opposite party received laptop from the complainant on 02.05.2019. On quarry by this Commission Mr. Datta submits that the written statement is filed by the employee of the opposite party, HP Services as authorized by the opposite party.
11. We have gone through the submission of the complainant, Sri Prasenjit Biswas as well as the Mr. Loknath Datta, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party. We have also gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. From the evidence on record it appears that the complainant gave his HP Laptop Computer No.CND4338HZ to the respondent-opposite party, HP Services on 02.05.2019 for minor repairing works. After encountering problem in the computer that it cannot be charged, it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. It also appears that the respondent-opposite party, Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. issued the bill in the name of Falguni Biswas, the wife of the complainant on 06.05.2019 and thereafter, the complainant take up the matter with the opposite party as the problem of the laptop had not been addressed properly and the problem persisted. By its letter dated 30^th May, 2019 (Annexure-II) of the complaint petition which was marked as Exhibit-1 series and the said letter was also received by the opposite party. In the letter dated June 13, 2019, the opposite party admitted that they received the aforesaid letter dated 30^th May, 2019 written by the complainant and it is stated in the letter dated 3^rd June, 2019 that if any new problem to contact with them. It also appears that the opposite party subsequently, received the Hp Laptop from the complainant which will be evident from receipt/challan dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure-IV), Exhibit-1 series. From the impugned judgment it appears that the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition only on a technical ground that the complainant is not the owner of the laptop and no authorization letter was submitted by him. In support of its contention the learned District Commission referred the provisions 2 sub Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but did not consider the provisions of Section 2 sub Section 2 (1) (d) wherein it is mentioned that,

“(d) “consumer” means any person who,— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;…………..”  

12. In Dinesh Bhagat (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission held that “if a person uses the goods with the approval of the person who bought them for consideration, or he avails of the services with the approval of the person who hired them, he is a consumer.” In that case, the appellant, Sri Dinesh Bhagat in his complaint petition stated that he purchased a Bajaj Super Scooter from the respondent, Bajaj Auto Ltd. and the said scooter started giving trouble from the very inception. He placed the said scooter to the respondent, but the respondent did not do anything; therefore, he filed the complaint petition for replacement of his scooter by a new scooter. The respondent of that case i.e. Bajaj Auto Ltd. contested the case and submitted that the scooter was checked in the workshop various times and it was found in perfect condition. The learned District Forum, during the pendency of the complaint directed the respondent to replace the chassis and one tyre. Accordingly, the respondent replaced the same, but the complainant was still not satisfied and alleged that the said defect persisted even after the chassis had been repaied; the learned District Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to get any further relief and dismissed the complaint petition. Hence, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Before the Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi the respondent argued that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, as the scooter had been booked with the respondent in the name of Mrs. Padma Kalra. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi exhibited the appeal and directed the respondent to rectify the scooter within a period of one month and also extended the warranty of the scooter for one year.

13. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission as well as the provisions of Section 2 sub Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer as he used the laptop. Even for the argument sake it is admitted that the laptop was purchased by his wife as the opposite party received the hp laptop from the complainant which is evident from the receipt/challan dated 16.05.2019 issued by the respondent-opposite party (Annexure-IV) (Exhibit-1 series) of the complaint petition. We are of the opinion that the learned District Commission in the instant case, ought to have decided who is the consumer of the laptop, but not the owner of the laptop.
14. Both in the case of Dinesh Bhagat (supra) as well as the case in hand, the complainant of both case used the goods in question without having any written approval from the owner of the goods. We are of the further opinion that when the goods belong to the wife of the complainant in the instant appeal, it is to be deemed that complainant is a bona fide user of the hp laptop in question. Thus, according to us, the learned District Commission failed to consider the evidence on record in its true perspective.
15. It appears from the record that the opposite party filed the written statement through one Biswanath Chakraborty, but there is no authorization letter for filing such written statement.  
16. The respondent-opposite party is directed to repair the hp laptop of the complainant to the full satisfaction of the complainant without charging any additional money from him as admittedly, the respondent-opposite party already received Rs.8,000/- from his wife for repairing the laptop. The appellant-complainant is directed to place the laptop to the respondent-opposite party, HP Services, C/o M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the judgment.

The respondent-opposite party shall repair the hp laptop of the complainant to his satisfaction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the laptop, failing which, the respondent-opposite party shall return the amount of Rs.8,000/- (already paid by the complainant as repairing charge of hp laptop to the respondent-opposite party) along with interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of receipt of the judgment.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and in consequent there to, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

      

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura