BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 132/2006 against C.D. 837/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad
Between:
1) M/s. Zenith Computers Ltd.
Plot No. 33 & 37
Sancoale Ind. Estate
P.O. Zuarinagar
Goa- 403 726.
2) M/s. Zenith Computers Ltd.
Rep. by its Area Sales Manager
Zenith House, Plot No. 17
Paigah Colony
Beside Anand Theatre
Secunderabad. *** Appellants/
O.Ps.
And
M/s. Vebtel Obconic Internet
Protocol Pvt. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Koutilya
Medinova Compound
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82
Rep. by its General Manager
(Finance) G. Chawla. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Anoop Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Kota Sameer Kumar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)
***
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with costs and take back six Laptop computers supplied by them.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on business of internet related services, internet telephones, data processing centre, computer software consultancy, computer networking with digital technology at Somajiguda, Hyderabad. While so for the purpose of execution of its work, it has purchased six laptop computers from the appellant company by invoice Dt. 30.7.2004 for an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- and were installed on 3.8.2004. However, after one month they started giving trouble. Some of the laptops had 5-10 minutes back up only. There was frequent problem with connectivity of LAN. When it was complained to the Customer Care Service which in turn sent the engineers for rectifying the defects. They replaced the batteries for some of the laptops. They have been trying to rectify the problems on temporary basis. In view of the problems, its business was partially affected. Finally it has issued a legal notice for which the company did not even respond, and therefore it filed the complaint to return the sale price with interest together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
3) The appellant company resisted the case. It alleged that complainant was not a consumer as it was carrying on business for commercial purpose. At any rate, it cannot be said that it was running for earning livelihood or for self employment. More over the complaint was filed beyond the warranty period. If it intended to avail the services, it would be rendered on chargeable basis. It was willing to undertake service after inspection of the laptops. There was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant in any of the laptops sold by them. If really there was any manufacturing defect, the laptops would not have been functioning for the past one year. It has given proper reply to the notice issued by the complainant.
Whenever complaints were made they were attending. The very complainant had satisfied with the working of the laptops after their engineers had attended on them. The complainant was not entitled for replacement of laptops nor refund of the amount. The allegation that it has sustained loss of business is false. The complainant having been benefited could not have sought for replacement of laptops or for return of the amount, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence of its General Manager (Finance) and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked, while the appellants got Exs. B1 & B2 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that “ of course repairs were promptly undertaken, the laptops were giving only 5 to 10 minutes back up which was very unsatisfactory. However, the claim of the complainant was on very high side. Hence, it was decided to partly allow the complaint as the complainant was having warranty for laptops and accordingly it was decided to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant along with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, and take back six laptops as they were found to be giving frequent trouble, and not giving reasonable back up time which was clear from the field call reports”.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. Importantly, it did not consider the fact that the complainant was filed beyond the expiry of warranty period. Their own record, filed by them would disclose that these laptops are working satisfactorily. The order, awarding amount by taking back laptops, is contrary to the facts, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order under appeal is manifestly illegal and liable to be set-aside?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a private limited company carrying on business of internet related services, purchased six laptops from the appellant company for its commercial use under invoice Ex. A4 Dt. 30.7.2004 and they were installed on 3.8.2004. The warranty period was for one year and expired on 2.8.2005. Before going into the question whether the complainant can be termed as consumer in view of the fact that it is a private limited company purchased laptops for carrying on commercial activity, the complainant after installation of these laptops complained that batteries of two of the laptops were not giving back up.
9) When the complainant had complained that two of the laptops batteries were not in good working condition they were replaced. There was no complaint pertaining to other laptops. On 27.6.2005 when the complainant had complained that one of the laptop’s wireless Lan card was not functioning well, it was replaced. The complainant could not show that there were problems in other laptops also. Ex. A3 pertain to installation certificate. The customer EDP in-charge of the complainant, signed acknowledging that the systems installed were working satisfactorily. Ex. A10 a series of field call reports, show that whenever the complainant was making complaint that laptop was not working properly ‘under the coloumn’ work done, it was mentioned ‘Battery pack to be replaced’ vide call reference No. 31231 Dt. 2.5.2005. On 4.5.2005 when they replaced the laptop battery there was a mention that ‘ now battery and laptop were working fine’. Representative of the complainant also signed on it. So also, when complainant was made on 4.5.2005 under call reference No. 31603 again the battery was replaced.
On 30. 5. 2005 the very complainant has mentioned that ‘replaced battery, now working fine. In regard to third Laptop as to the replacement of LAN card, the endorsement was that “installed antivirus, deleted infected files, the laptop was working fine and the wireless LAN was working fine and shown to the customer”.
10) Equally the appellant filed Ex. B2 showing that they had replaced four laptop batteries and that the laptops were working fine signed by no other than representative of the complainant. We may state that a perusal of the record would disclose that whenever a complaint was made the appellant was attending on it. Had there been any problem in the laptops, evidently the complainant could not have worked on them.
11) When the warranty period was going to be expired on 2.8.2005, just one day before 1.8.2005 it got issued a legal notice. For the first time the complainant alleges that it was sustaining loss due to deficiency in service on the part of appellants by not attending to its problems and requested to replace the laptops together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Though the complainant alleged that the appellant did not give any reply, in fact it has given reply under Ex. A9 by mentioning that warranty in respect of laptops has been expired and the service or replacement could be made only on payment of requisite charges so that they can attend to the complaint and give replacement of parts if needed on payment of costs. They asserted that laptops were in good working order. They have categorically mentioned that when the complaint was made with regard to the laptops they mentioned that they had replaced the batteries and from then onwards they were working fine, equally in regard to wireless LAN card.
12) The complainant could not show that after the appellant attended to its complaints, they were not working. It did not file any evidence by taking print outs or such other data which would enable this Commission to find out that the laptops were not working properly. It is not difficult for them to show that laptops were not working. Evidence could have been let in to show that some of the laptops were giving problems. It did not issue any notice. Whenever complaints were made they were redressed. Moreover, the complainant having used the laptops for a period of one year, cannot claim replacement of laptops, just one day before expiry of warranty period. Patently this is an unjust claim in order to benefit itself. The appellant need not replace the laptops nor need to attend the problems subsequent to expiry of warranty period unless service charges etc. are paid. The complainant having utilized the laptops intends to benefit by getting new laptops having worked for one year and earned the amounts.
13) Importantly, the complainant being a private limited company purchased six laptops for commercial purpose cannot be termed as consumer. One can understand if the complainant purchased the laptops for the purpose of livelihood or for self employment in such case he could be considered as consumer. Since the very complainant in his complaint mentioned that “it is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on business of internet related services, internet telephones, data processing centre, computer software consultancy, computer networking with digital technology at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer falling within four corners of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
14) In the light of conclusions arrived by us, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in the complaint, and is liable to be dismissed at threshold.
15) The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:
· that it was claimed subsequent to the warranty period.
· it was for commercial purpose
· whatever problem complained was rectified by the appellant.
16) In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the Dist. Forum is set-aside, consequently the complaint is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-.
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
Dt. 06. 04. 2009.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
