Orissa

Jajapur

CC/89/2015

Sri Sudam Chandra Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,HCL - Opp.Party(s)

05 May 2017

ORDER

                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 Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.