West Bengal

Siliguri

67/S/2010

SUBHASH PROSAD GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LOGIC FUSION PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 67/S/2010.                DATED : 23.07.2015.

                

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                1.         : SRI SUBHASH PROSAD GUPTA,

S/o Sri Rammurat Lal Gupta of Kadamtala,    

P.O.- Champasari, P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

Ward No.46 of S.M.C., Sub. Div.- Siliguri,

Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

            O.Ps.           1)       : LIGIC FUSION PVT. LTD.,

  Kapil Centre, 1^st Floor, Sevoke Road,   

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,

  Pin – 734 001.

                                                                                                                                                               

2)         : COMPUTEK (SERVICE PROVIDER OF

  LENOVO),

  Of Kiran Niwas, Sisir Bhaduri Sarani,

  Holding No.37/33, Ward No.XI,

  Khudirampally, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 001.

 

3)        : LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,

 Rs. No.216, Village Jharmajiri, Baddi

 Barotiwala Road, P.O. Barotiwala,

 Dist. Solan -174 103, Himachal Pradesh.

 (Manufacturer of Lenovo Computer).

 

                                                4)         : LENOVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,

  Ferns Icon, Level -2 , Doddenakund Village,

  Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli

  Post, Kr. Puram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 037,

  Phone No.080-30533000,

 

                                                5)         : LENOVO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,

  MLS Business Centres India Pvt. Ltd.,

  6^th Floor, Block A, 22, Camac Street,

  Kolkata – 700 016,

  Mph No.033-4019-2234 to 4019-2239. 

                                                                                                                                                                      

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

FOR THE OP No.1                          : Sri Sudip Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

FOR THE OP Nos. 3, 4 & 5            : Sri Chandan De, Advocate.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Contd…P/2

-:2:-

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

Mr. Biswanth De, Hon’ble President

 

 

The whole cracks of the complainant’s case is that complainant purchased a Lenovo Desktop Computer with its other accessories being No.Lenovo 3000K200 5313ICQ, Sl. No.MBI4064 from OP No.1 on 23.05.2009 by total price Rs.45,000/-.  Since that day the computer has not working properly.  The matter was reported to OP No.1.  The OP No.1 somehow repaired the computer, but that became as before.  On 26.04.2010 computer monitor showed “fatal error, key board not found”.  The matter was at once reported to OP No.1.  OP No.1 shifted the liability on OP No.2.  The OP No.2 told the complainant that probable steps would be taken.  The OP No.2 sent a mechanic to the complainant to the house on 04.05.2010.  He detected fault of Mother Board of CPU and the complainant was also told that Mother Board was not available in their service centre.  The articles were sent by the law clerk to the OP No.2 on 09.09.2010 under Property Receipt Challan dated 09.09.2010.  The same was taken by Sanjay Dutta of OP No.2.  But since receipt of articles and the computer, CPU, but those articles i.e., parts of the computer have not been sent by the OP No.2.  it is specifically stated that OP No.2 has not returned the above articles as per demand of complainant.  The OPs have acted deficiently and negligently by not replacing CPU and key board to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant prays for return of the price fo the computer amounting Rs.45,000/- and the OP should pay Rs.25,000/- for mental pain, harassment and professional loss. 

The OP No.2 did not appear and the case has been heard ex-parte against him. 

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 appeared before this Forum and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant against them.

 

Contd…P/3

-:3:-

 

 

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 admit that they are manufacturer.  They are willing to resolve the complainant’s problem by providing one time repair of the computer by replacing defective parts after a detailed diagnosis.  The replacement of the spars if found defective and the subsequent repairs shall be carried out free of charges.  The relationship of these OPs with OP No.2 has not been denied and rather admitted that OP No.2 is service provider of Lenovo.

OP No.4 was incorporated under the Company’s Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing, distributing, sale, purchase of computers systems and related services in India and abroad.  The complainant approached to unauthorized service provider which is void as per terms and conditions of Lenovo Ltd.  OP No.1 is not authorized service provider.  Service during warranty period is available as per their own program given in website.  OP No.1 is reseller of computer products by OP Nos.3, 4 & 5.  Unauthorized repair of computer demands no action.  Transaction of complainant with OP No.1 is not cognizable by OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 for want of evidence.  Complainant did not follow the principles to lodge complaint before OP Nos.3, 4 & 5.  However, as a manufacturer OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 are willing to resolve the complainant’s problem by providing one time repair of the computer by replacing the defective parts after a detailed diagnosis.  The replacement of spares, if found defective and the subsequent repairs shall be carried out free of charges.  So, OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 submit that case may be dismissed of.     

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether the complainant purchased the goods manufactured by OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 through OP No.1/retailer. 

2.       Whether there was any defect, if so, is the complainant entitled to get order under Section 14 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

 

Decision with reason

 

Complainant has filed some documents.

 

Contd…P/4

-:4:-

 

 

1.       Xerox copy of visiting card of Logic Fusion.

2.       Xerox copy of Quotation for Computers issued by authority of Logic Fusion dated 22.05.2009.

3.       Xerox copy of retail invoice in the name of complainant dated 23.05.09.

4.       Xerox copy of receipt voucher dated 23.05.2009.

5.       Xerox copy of retail invoice of Pen Drive 2GB Transcend dated 23.05.09.

6.       Xerox copy of warranty information of Lenovo Computer.

7.       4 Xerox copies of Customer Call reports. 

8.       Xerox copies of challan dated 06.05.10 & 07.05.10 issued by Computek. 

9.       Xerox copy of Cash Memo for purchasing S.V.B. Keyboard issued by Amodini, Multi Purpose Electronic shop dated 31.05.2010.     

OPs did not file any document. 

The complainant has adduced evidence-in-chief.

The complainant has examined himself as PW No.1 on oath.

PW No.2 is another witness and PW No.3 is another witness.

PW No.2 is law clerk of complainant. 

PW No.2 was present when the computer was given to service centre situated at Kiran Niwas, Sisir Bhaduri Sarani, Khudirampally, Siliguri.  Sanjay Dutta gave a challan to this witness with challan and that challan this witness PW No.2 returned to the house of complainant PW No.1 (Sl. No.8) and in presence of this witness the OP W No.1 was handed over to Sanjay Dutta for warranty replacement and Sri Sanjay Dutta issued challan for replacing CPU.  The challan is Sl. No.9.  Another witness PW No.3 supported the evidence of PW No.2 (Sl. No.9). 

From the evidence of this two witnesses PW No.2 & PW No.3 and documents Sl. Nos.8 & 9 it is abundantly clear that the CPU and Mother Board was found defective and to remove the defect the said machine which was given to Sanjay Dutta.

 

Contd…P/5

 

-:5:-

 

 

On the other hand the evidence on affidavit filed by the OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 abundantly show that the complainant purchased a computer from the OP No.1 who is reseller of computer produced by OP Nos.3, 4, & 5.  It is admitted fact. 

As per statement para 10 as well as in evidence on oath, it is clear that keeping the CPU and Mother Board in the possession of OP No.2 as per advice of OP No.1 is proved by the complainant adduced evidence documentary as well as oral evidence and such fact of producing the computer for removing defect cannot be denied by the OP Nos.3, 4 & 5. 

The fact stated by the complainant is that he purchased the computer and the same was found defective is proved.  It is also proved that the complainant purchased the defective computer from OP No.1 and it is OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 who are manufacturer of the computer as per their own statement.  The OPs have duty to remove the defect but that has not been done.  This omission is nothing but to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the manufacturer to the consumer and the Consumer Protection Act was borne by better protection of the rights of the consumers and was given specific provisions in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Accordingly, after considering the oral and documentary evidence before this Forum, it is established that there was defect in the computer and in other parts as per allegations of the complainant. 

So, the complainant’s case succeeds on contest.

Let us now consider the quantum of compensation. 

Keeping the provision of law laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which runs as follows :-

14(1) (a)      to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;

          (b)      to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect’

          (c)      to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant’

 

Contd…P/6

 

-:6:-

 

 

 

          (d)      to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. 

          As per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is entitled to get price of Computer or a new computer along with compensation and professional fees. 

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 are manufacturer of computer.  It is their duty for to marketing with defectless products for the consumer.  But they did not follow that principle.  The complainant purchased computer to facilitate his workings, but that has not been done.  Due to omissions of OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 to act with due care and attention, defect machine/goods have come into market.  So, they must give adequate compensation for Rs.25,000/- as compensation to complainant.  They also give Rs.20,000/- for professional loss as the complainant is an advocate.  The complainant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% as the complainant has been forced to come before this Forum for negligence act of OP Nos.3, 4 & 5. 

Accordingly, it is

                            O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.67/S/2010 be, and the same is allowed on contest as against OP No.3, 4 & 5 and dismissed on contest as against OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte as against OP No.2. 

The complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the computer or a new computer from the OP Nos.3, 4 & 5.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for his mental pain, sufferings and harassment. 

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for his professional loss.

The complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appearance of the OP Nos.3, 4 & 5 before this Forum till full payment on Rs.70,000/-.

 

Contd…P/7

-:7:-

 

 

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to refund the price of the computer by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant or a new computer within 45 day of this order. 

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for his mental pain, sufferings, and harassment within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for his professional loss, within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.3, 4 & 5, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.70,000/- from the date of appearance of the OPs before this Forum till full payment, within 45 days of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till realization.

In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                     -Member-                         -President-