Complainant present in person
Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Darvhekar
Opponent No. 2 absent
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(09/05/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the manufacturing company and the dealer of Desktop for deficiency in service and the defects in the goods under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Viman Nagar, Pune – 14. The opponent no. 1 is the manufacturing company and the opponent no. 2 is the dealer of Desktop. The complainant has purchased Lenovo Desktop from the opponent no. 1 through the opponent no. 2 on 17/10/2010 for Rs. 28,990/-. On 18/7/2011, there is problem of ‘no display’ developed in the desktop. This problem was communicated to the opponent no. 2 immediately, who had sent representative and he replaced the part known as ‘planner’. Again on 4/8/2011, same problem of ‘no display’ was located in the desktop. Again it was informed to the opponent no. 2, who had sent representative and he replaced the part known as ‘Invertor’. On 5/9/2011 the same problem was developed in the desktop and on 6/9/2011 the representative had diagnosed that there is need of replacement of Invertor, LCD & LCD Cable. The service provider did not attend the recurring problem satisfactorily for two months. The complainant made complaint to the opponent no. 1. On 18/7/2011 there was only intermittently functional of the desktop and on 6/9/2011, it was fully non functional. The opponent no. 1 had manufactured defective goods. No proper service is provided to the complainant, hence the complainant has filed this complaint for the refund of cost of the desktop Rs. 28,990/-, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the complaint to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-.
2] The opponent no. 1 resisted the complaint by filing written version. It has denied the allegations made in the complaint. It has specifically denied that there is manufacturing defect in the desktop and the opponents have not provided proper services. It is the case of the opponent that the dealer had provided services from time to time whenever there is any problem occurred in the said desktop during the period of warranty. It is the case of the opponent that the complainant himself did not cooperate for the repair of the said product; hence he himself is guilty for non-functioning of the desktop. It is also contended that the relation of the opponent no. 1 and 2 are on principal to principal basis and not as principal to agent basis. Hence, the opponent no.1 is not liable for any fault on the part of the opponent no. 2. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3] The opponent no. 2 though duly served remained absent. Hence the complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opponent no. 2.
4] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that there were defects in the product as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opponent no. 1 and 2? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
5] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had purchased the product from the opponent no. 2, who is the dealer of opponent no.1. It is not in dispute that the opponent no. 2 had sent representative to the complainant for the repair and replacement of the parts of the desktop for two times. This fact is supported by the documentary evidence, which is produced by both the parties. It further reveals from the record that there was no any problem for the period of 9 months from the date of purchase of the desktop and the said product was enjoyed by the complainant during that period. Thereafter the problem of ‘no display’ occurred from time to time and many spare parts had been required to be replaced. In such circumstances, it is the considered opinion of the Forum that there are defects in the product. As the defects were not totally cured by the opponents, that amount to deficiency in service.
6] The complainant has asked refund of entire amount of the product. But it reveals from the record that he has used the product for nine months. Hence, he is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000/- as the cost of the product, after considering the depreciation for the period of nine months. He is also entitled to receive Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation on the ground of mental and physical harassment and the cost of the complaint. In the result this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
* O R D E R **
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only), to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
2. The opponent No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), as a compensation on the ground of mental and physical harassment and cost of the proceeding to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. On failure to pay the abovementioned
amount within six weeks, it shall carry
interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of
filing of the complaint till its realization.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 09/05/2014
