Tripura

West Tripura

CC/22/2015

Shri Rahul Banik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Dell India Pvt. Ltd. & 1 another - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B.Saha, Mr. S.Pal, Mr.R.Banik.

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  22 of 2015

Rahul Banik,
     S/O- Sri Bijoy Banik,
Ramnagar Road No. 11,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, 
West Tripura.                 ............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

1. Dell India Pvt. Ltd. 
(To be represented by its Managing Director,),
Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor,12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A,
Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hubli, Domlur,
Bangalore District, Bangalore, Karnataka-560071.

2. Infosolution System,
(To be represented by its Proprietor),
T.G. Road, Krishnanagar, 
Opp. to Ramnagar Road No.2,
Agartala- 799001,
West Tripura.                .........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : Sri Bijan Saha and            
                  Sri Saptarshi Pal,
                  Advocates.    

For the O.P. No.1        : Sri Anupam Pal,
                  Advocate.              
                                                         
For the O.P. No.2        : Sri Arijit Bhowmik and
                  Smt. Simita Chakraborty,
                  Advocates.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  05.01.16

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the complaint filed by one Rahul Banik U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased a laptop computer from Infosolution System, O.P. No.2 on payment of  a consideration of Rs.39,200/-. The Laptop was purchased on 10.05.13. It had one year warranty period. After purchase it was functioning properly for one year and half month thereafter various defects developed. It was not responding and was in hanging position. Matter was brought to the notice of O.P. No.2, seller and also the company, O.P. No.1. On the advise of O.P. no.1 through online the computer was functional for some time but within a short period again it became non-functional. Before lapse of the warranty period the laptop again was not working. No remedial step was taken by the O.P. No.1 and 2. Legal notice was served then the case filed before this Forum. The petitioner pray for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for deficiency of service.

2.        O.P. No.2 appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. O.P. No.2 in written statement contends that they have no power to replace the product. The O.P. No.1 has the authority who can replace it. 

3.        O.P. No.1, on the other hand by filing written statement stated that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.1. O.P. No.1 is still ready to  provide service as per warranty  if the complainant  so desire as customer resolution is important  requirement. 

4.        On the basis of rival contention as put forward by the petitioner and the O.Ps following points cropped up for determination. 
        (i) Whether there was any deficiency of service and illegal trade practice by O.P. No.1 and 2?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation?
        
5.        Petitioner side produced original copy of bill,  copy of Challan, Photocopy of legal notice, 4 copy of postal receipts, 3 AD cards also examined one witness, Rahul Banik.

6.        O.P. on the other hand submitted written statement only but failed to produce any evidence. After several chances O.Ps failed to give any evidence. So argument of O.P. No.2 and  petitioner was heard. O.P. No.1 did not argue.
        
7.        On the basis of evidence as produced we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS:
        
8.        The fact of purchase of computer laptop from the shop of O.P. No.2, Infosolution System is an admitted fact. The Original Challan is produced to support it. The laptop was purchased for Rs.39,200/-. The warranty card not produced by the complainant or Opposite party. We are in dark about the terms and conditions of the warranty. But it is admitted by O.P. No.1 and 2 in their written statement that the warranty was for one year. Free service is to be provided within this one year for repairing of the laptop and if necessary replace it. Generally this condition are found in the warranty. The contention of the O.P. No.2, Infosolution System that they are stockist only not seller is baseless. The Challan clearly shows that they are seller not stockist only. Being seller they are directly involved in the matter of trade. Our Forum deals with the unfair trade practice. Unfair trade practice means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting any sale, use or supply any goods or services, adopts any unfair method. Selling of second hand laptop stating it a fresh one is definitely an illegal trade practice. But no cogent evidence given before us to support that second hand laptop was sold by O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 in their written statement only stated that O.P. No.1 will be liable for replacement/ repairing or other service. It has not mentioned whether any service centre is available in Tripura or not. Being seller it is the duty of O.P. No.2 to arrange the service. He is to cure the defect or make contact with the company manufacturer. But no such step is taken  or no endeavour is found by O.P. No.2 to give service to the petitioner for repairing the laptop. Manufacturing defect not found and it was in a functioning mode for some period.  It is admitted by the O.P. No.1 that under warranty clause company is  under liability for repairing free of cost while the product is under warranty. So, company is ready to give the service and in the written statement  in para- 8 to 10 this is mentioned that O.P. No.1 is still ready to provide service  as per warranty policy if the complainant so desire as customer satisfaction is an important requirement for the answering respondent. The company given online service to the product earlier. Petitioner in the evidence stated that service engineer attended the product on 2 occasions. Upon receipt of the complaint the service engineer attended the laptop  s placed  by O.P. No.2 to remove the defect. From the evidence as given by the petitioner it is found that the O.P. No.1, company is ready to provide required service & being seller, O.P. No.2 is under liability to arrange the service and repair the defect of the computer. Warranty card is not produced before us and nothing found to support that in case of any defect the laptop is to be taken back by company and new one is to be supplied. Petitioner, Rahul Banik claimed 2 lakhs as he suffered in various ways due to harassment, physical and mental pain.  From the above position we consider that O.P. No.1 who is ready to provide service shall take step for repairing the laptop. O.P. No.2 should take care of it and being seller he is to render all help for providing the service. 

9.        From the above discussion it is clear that O.P. No.2 did not give proper service. He only put all blame to O.P. No.1  though he sold out the product to the petitioner. This is unfair trade practice. For this unfair trade practice O.P. No.2 is to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the petitioner as compensation. O.P. No.2 is also directed to take step for repairing the laptop within one month. We also direct the O.P. No.1, Dell India Pvt. Ltd. to repair the computer without fail or replace it if it can not be repaired. Infosolution System, O.P. No.2 is directed to take up the matter with Dell India Pvt. Ltd., O.P. No.1 for repairing the laptop within one month. Being seller of the product he is in right  position for solving the problem. In case the product is not repaired within time then it is to replaced by  a new one by the O.P. No.1 and 2 without fail.  In addition O.P. no. 2 is to pay Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) to the complainant as compensation for illegal trade practice.
        
10.        With this direction this prayer U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is disposed. The petition is partly allowed. Supply copy of the judgment.      
    
    
11.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.