DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.528/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
23.08.2016 02.09.2016 15.01.2018
Complainant: Smt. Barnali De @ Barnali, W/o Sri. Subrata Dey, P-198,
Lake Town, P.S.-Lake Town, Kolkata-700 089.
Vs.
Opposite Parties: 1) M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited,
Akash Block Salarpuria GR Techpark, Bangalore,
Karnataka, India, Pin-560 066.
2) The Customer Related Manager,
M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited, KDLOI,
DLF IT-AF, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata,
West Bengal, India, Pin-700 056.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.
: Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
ORDER: 11
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step either to replace the defective laptop with a new one of similar configuration or to refund the amount as paid by her during its purchase along with interest.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that on 27.09.2013 she purchased one laptop of the OP-Company from a renowned shop namely Hitech Gallery, Kolkata. Since its purchase it was found that the said laptop was suffering from defects such as- operating system very much slow, continuous hanging problem and though it is i5 model/configured, a high end laptop but does not match like speed. Immediately the Complainant intimated the same to shop owner from where it was purchased and as per his advice the Complainant contacted with the customer care of the OP and the OP had accordingly changed some parts of the said laptop from time to time, but after some days another problem cropped up along with the repaired problem again. For this reason the Complainant had to approach before the customer care of the OP almost regularly for its necessary repairing. The Hard Disc, Motherboard, LED Screen were changed. Within two years and half month changes were made on 14 occasions and still it is not functioning properly and the Complainant cannot use the same till date even after her repeated reminders/complaints. Due to frequent occurrence of such problem the purpose of purchasing the laptop became frustrated. The Complainant requested the OP-1 for replacement of the defective laptop, but the OP-1 has provided one dummy low grade laptop to her for temporary use without replacing the defective one. The OP-1 took plea that within warranty period replacement is not possible. According to the Complainant the defects in the laptop is beyond repair as it suffers from inherent defect/manufacturing defects. As the problems are still persisting and the OPs did not take any step to redress the grievance of the Complainant, hence having no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs either to replace the defective laptop with a new one of similar nature/configuration or to refund the amount paid by her during its purchase along wit interest, to pay her appropriate compensation due to harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to her.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version denying the entire allegations as made out by the Complainant in the petition of complaint. The OPs have contended that as the Complainant has alleged that the questioned laptop suffers from its manufacturing defects, hence until and unless an expert opinion is forthcoming from the notified laboratory as per the Consumer Protection Act, the dispute cannot be resolved, but the Complainant did not take any step in this regard. The OPs have submitted that the questioned laptop being sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and its working and services depends on some various factors such as electrical supply, proper handling of the system, software installed in the system etc. Any mishandling of the system or installation of pirated software would hamper the proper working system of the questioned laptop. Therefore, if any component is defective either changing the same or repairing the same would solve the entire problem of the laptop. As and when the Complainant intimated about the problem, then and there the OPs took steps for removal of the same and on several occasions various parts and spares were also changed totally free of cost. Therefore the OPs are no agreed either for replacement or to refund the cost of the laptop to the Complainant. The OPs are ready to remove the defects from the laptop after detection of the same by an expert. The OPs have placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the written version the OPs have mentioned that this Ld. Forum cannot adjudicate this complaint as the complaint is barred by territorial jurisdiction. The record and the documents will show that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum in view of the Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So this complaint will go on this score alone. The OPs have stated that the petition of complaint being vexatious, frivolous is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost in view of the Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of their respective contentions. Both parties have also filed BNA. The Complainant and the OPs have placed their reliance on the rulings in support of their argument.
We have carefully perused the record; documents, Rulings filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. As the OPs have taken the plea that the complaint lacks of territorial jurisdiction, hence we are inclined to adjudicate the same at the very outset. From the record it is evident to us that the Complainant purchased the questioned laptop from Hitech Gallery, which is situated at 6, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-72. The annexure-B (from the page 12-25) as filed by the Complainant show that due to crop up some defects on several occasions the Complainant approached before the Ensure Support Services (India) Limited being the HP Authorised Service centre, which is situated at Unit no-5, 1st Floor, No, 10, Wood Street, Kolkata-700 016. During argument the Complainant files some original documents showing the name and address of the service centre from where the Complainant had availed of the services regarding removal of defects from the questioned laptop, which shows that the Service Centre namely Redington (India) Limited being the HP Authorised Service Centre is situated at Unit no-5, 1st Floor, No, 10, Wood Street, Kolkata-700 016. Admittedly the address of the OP-1 shows that it situates in Bangalore, in the State of Karnataka, but though the address of the OP-2 reveals that it is situated at New Town, Rajarhat, which admittedly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, but neither any averment is forthcoming from the Complainant nor any document is filed showing any transaction with the OP-2. The contention of the Complainant along with supporting documents do not show that any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, rather the abovementioned addresses are clearly revealed from where the Complainant purchased the laptop and the service centre from where she availed of the services do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. In this respect we may mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 135, wherein Their Lordships have held in the paragraph no-10 which runs as follows-
10. “In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2)(b of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the Complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the Insurance Company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary.”
Therefore having regard to the abovementioned observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Law of this Land we are of the view that in the instant dispute as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limit of this Ld. Forum, we cannot adjudicate the instant complaint. Hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint is dismissed being barred by its territorial jurisdiction on contest without any cost. However the Complainant will be at liberty to approach before the appropriate Forum/Court/Commission, if not barred otherwise.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me
