Dinesh Kumar filed a consumer case on 26 Nov 2007 against M/S M.S. Computers in the Bhatinda Consumer Court. The case no is CC/07/269 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Punjab
Bhatinda
CC/07/269
Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S M.S. Computers - Opp.Party(s)
Sh. Charan Singh Virk Advocate
26 Nov 2007
ORDER
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001 consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/269
Dinesh Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) C.C.No.269 of 10.9.2007 Decided on : 26.11.2007 Dinesh Kumar Singla S/o Jiwan Singla, H. No. 20315, G.T.B Nagar, Gali No.14, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ...... Complainant Versus. M/s. M.S Computers through its Proprietor Pankaj Kumar, Hardware, Software, Consumable and General Order Supplier, H. No. 5566, Behind Sports, Dev Samaj Chowk, Bathinda, now name and style changed as N.S Solutions, 4-C, Public Library, Shopping Complex, Near Gole Diggi, Bathinda. ...... Opposite parties Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member For the complainant : Sh. Charan Singh Virk, Advocate For the opposite parties : Naresh Garg, Advocate O R D E R LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- 1. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of causing harassment, mental tension and financial loss; repair the Computer free of cost or in the alternative pay Rs. 16,400/- alongwith interest, besides costs. 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Computer AMD 2800 Kit 256, ATX Cabinet, 809B, Combo KS Mouse, 17 Monitor 201 Spk. from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 16,400/- against bill No. 310 dated 26.3.2007. Period of warranty was one year. As per it, Computer was liable to be repaired or replaced in case of defect in it within the period of warranty. It had become defective immediately after purchasing it. Matter was reported to the opposite party, but it paid no heed. Neither Computer has been repaired nor replaced. He got served legal notice upon the opposite party through his counsel. Act and conduct of the opposite party has caused him harassment, mental agony and financial loss. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 3. Opposite party filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable and it is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party i.e. M/s. N.S Solutions. It has no concern with M/s. N.S Solutions; complainant has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. Infact, complainant had purchased hardware components i.e. AMD 2800 + Kit (Processor & Mother board), 256 RAM, ATX cabinet, 80 GB Hard Disc, Combo Drive (DVD Driver), Key Board (KB), Mouse, 17 Monitor, 2.1 Speakers etc. ( i.e. Power Cable and Mouse pad ) against bill No. 310 dated 26.3.2007 for Rs. 16,400/- with one year warranty by the company only. It is still ready to repair the hardware components if there is any defect in the warranty period. It has no concern with the Computer as Computer was not sold. Hardware components sold are not complete Computer. They are the accessories of the Computer. After assembling the components i.e. hardware, software/operating system are required to be loaded for making a complete Computer. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint. 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Dinesh Kumar complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1) and photocopies of bills (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4). 5. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Pankaj Goyal and photocopy of registration certificate (Ex.R.2). 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite party. 7. Complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C.1 reiterating his version in the complaint. Besides this, Ex.C.2 is the copy of bill No. 310 dated 26.3.2007 for Rs. 16,400/-. Material question for determination in this case is as to whether complainant has established deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The reply to our minds is in the negative. So far as affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Pankaj Goyal of opposite party. Affidavit Ex.R.1 gets corroboration from the details of the items purchased through bill, copy of which is Ex.C.2. A perusal of Ex.C.2 reveals that infact hardware components of Computer were purchased by the complainant for Rs. 16,400/-. There is nothing in the complaint that Computer was assembled by the opposite party with the components purchased by him and was handed over to him. Stance of the complainant that Computer was purchased by him is contradicted by the items mentioned in the bill itself. No-doubt, opposite party admits the warranty of one year on the hardware components sold by it and it has shown readiness and willingness to repair them if there is any defect in them during the warranty period. Complainant is not alleging any specific defect in the hardware components purchased by him. According to him, Computer is defective and it has not been repaired by the opposite party. Warranty has not been given for the Computer. Rather, it is for the parts purchased by him. No affidavit of the expert has been produced by the complainant on the basis of which it can be said that the hardware components purchased by him are defective during the period of warranty when sale of the Computer by the opposite party is not admitted, it is not bound to repair or replace it. Accordingly, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is not proved. 8. In the result, complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sen to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh) 26.11.2007 President Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar) Member Member 'bsg'
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.