Sri Sudam Chandra Mishra filed a consumer case on 05 May 2017 against Managing Director,HCL in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/89/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jun 2017.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 5th day of May,2017.
C.C.Case No.89 of 2015
Sri Sudam ch.Mishra S/O Radhashyam Mishra
Vill. Kujahala,P.O.Sujanpur
Dist.-Jajpur. …… ……....Complainant . .
(Versus)
1.Managing Director,HCL HCL Infosystems Ltd D.233,sector-63,Noida.
2.Manager, M/S S.Com computer Gariapur. Jajpur Town
Dist.Jajpur.
……………..Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the Opp.Parties : No.1 Sri Sandeep Samal, Advocate .
For the O.pp.Parteis No.2 Sri S.S.Ray, Advocate.
Date of order: 05.05.2017.
SHRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT .
The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The fact lies in the narrow campus is that the petitioner has purchased one P.C DESKTOP HCL COMPUTER AA2V1232N DC-3RD 2GB,500GB 3YRS, S/N -CI33AA 768528 by paying Rs.26,950/- towards the cost of computer from the O.P.2 on dt.28/08/2014.
Within one month from the date of purchase the VGA port of the mother board in the monitor became fully damaged and replaced by stand by CPU . The complaint regarding system was intimated to the company as well as dealer . Though there is provision for door service of the company but the dealer compelled the petitioner to take the system to the show room .The petitioner three times had taken the system to the show room by spending the transporting cost amounting to Rs.900/- from his own pocket .But the company did not solved the problem of the alleged computer. .
Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P to replace the system by new one and compensate the petitioner amounting to Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
After receipt of the notice the o.p.no.1 appeared and filed the written version and O.P.no.2 though appeared but did not filed written version or contested the case. Hence the O.P.no.2 has been set- expartee .
The O.P.no.1 filed the written version through learned advocate taking the following defence:-
The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in its present form or under law. There is absolutely no cause of action and / or actionable claim arising in favour of the complainant for filing the present complaint against O.P.no.1 .
The complainant have suppressed material facts and has not come before the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and also with his ulterior motive for wrongful gain instituted this false case by misleading this Hon’ble Forum and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.
The O.P no.1 states and submit that the instant litigation is groundless and far from reality, having no survival value and as such this Hon’ble court after hearing the party no.1 may kindly be pleased to dismiss the instant complaint as vague, frivolous and vexatious in exercise of the power conferred to this Hon’ble Forum U/S 26 of C.P. Act.
The complaint is admitting for getting replacement services from the O.P which indicates the O.P.s obligation in toto. In other way it can be understood that when ever the complainant has approached the O.P.no.1 to avail technical support towards the purchased PC Desktop, the O.P.no.1 extended technical supports to the specified problem of the complaint and accordingly the problem has been sought out with immediate effect in time bound manner, within warranty period and the complainant has endorsed its satisfaction therein.
There is neither any material nor a single line in the complaint regarding the unfair trade practice or any deficiency of service which is the most essential ingredients to be placed by the complaint. On the other hand there is no occasion or situations prevailing for the replacement of the articles or to pay compensation. More over in the instant case the complainant’s motive was only to extract money from the O.P company .
The relief sought for in present complaint by the complainant is untenable and devoid of merit and as such is liable to be discarded out right inter-alia with heavy exemplary cost .
On the date hearing the adv. for O.P.no.1 was absent . we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner . Perused the record along with Annexed documents filed from both the sides .We have come to the conclusion as follows:-
1.It is cristal clear that the petitioner purchased a HCL PC desk top from the O.P.no.2 at the cost of Rs.26,950/- vide retail invoice No.S.COM/1280/14-15 in 28Aug,2015 issued by the O.P.no.2 who is the retail sale point of O.P.no.1 .
2.After installation of said PC the petitioner intimated the O.Ps about the defect of the PC and subsequently lodge the complaint on dt.8th September- 2015 and 10th October-2015 .
3.The O.P.no1 vide their reply in written version categorically stated that they have provided service of the PC of the petitioner on various dates to sought out the different problems i.e 06.10.14, 10.11.14, 16.09.15 and 23.09.15
4.It is clear fact that the petitioner has purchased the PC on 28.08.14 and the said product containing warranty of three year from the date of purchase .In the complain lodged before the O.P.1 who is the manufacture of the said product was tried to sought out the problem of the said PC.
5.On the other hand the O.P.no.2 being the retailer of the said PC who received the notice of the dispute , appeared through their learned advocate but did not file any written version or contested the dispute .In this stage we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted statement mentioned by the petitioner made in the complain petition against the O.P.no2 .
As per observation of Hon’ble Odisha State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-p-15 .C.D.Case No.37/02 wherein it is held that:
In absence of written version by the O.P, the Commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement of the complaint petition.”
And
2013(1)CPR-0507-N.C ,wherein it is held that:-
“In case written version not filed after several opportunity, it has no defence on merit.”
In view of the above observation from our side it is cristal clear that like wise the O.P.no.1 tried to sought out the problem of the PC but the said product frequently gave problem which put the petitioner into harassment from the initial stage of purchase.
Hence this order :
The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. . The O.P.no.1 who is the manufacturer and service provider is directed to replace the defective P.C either in same model within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.no.2 shall refund the price of the P.C after taking back the defective P.C from the petitioner along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand)to be paid to the petitioner out of which the compensation amount 50% shall be recovered by O.P.no.2 from O.P.no.1 . No cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of May,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.