Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/639

M/s. Maghaji Scooter House - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Mach Comuters and Others - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 06.04.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 21.02.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.639/2015

DATED THIS THE 21^st FEBRUARY OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s.Maghaji Scooter House, Journalist Colony,

3^rd cross, Bengaluru-02.

Rep. by its proprietor Sri.Mahendra Kumar

 

By Adv.Sri.D.Srinivasa     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. M/s.Mach Computers,

No.8-4/1, 1^st floor,

Amit Tower, 3^rd cross,

PP Lane, SJP road,

Bengaluru-02.

Rep. by its Proprietor

 

Ex-parte

 

2. M/s.LG Electronics

India pvt. ltd.,

Regional Office, no.914,

2^nd floor, 80 feet road,

Sri Venkateshwara complex, Koramangala 6^th block, Bengaluru-05.

Rep. by its Regional Manager

 

3. M/s.LG Electronics pvt. ltd.,

LG Service centre, no.93,

Ten Mansion, K.G.Road, Bengaluru-27.

Rep. by its Manager

 

By Adv.Sri.Rajesh.A

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction either to replace the broken monitor stand and damaged monitor of the computer system or alternatively to refund the sum of Rs.41,509/- with interest at 2% p.m. from 29.01.14 till realization. Further prays to direct the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the hardship, mental agony suffered by the Complainant and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he is the proprietary concern engaged in the business of dealing in automobile spare parts and allied products having its place of business in Journalist colony, Bengaluru. It is the case of the Complainant that Op.no.1 is the dealer, Op.no.2 is the manufacturer and Op.no.3 is the service centre of LG products. The Complainant further submits that, he intended to purchase a complete set of computer system for the purpose of its business transaction. He went to the retail shop room of the Op.no.1 and purchased a complete set of LG brand computer system with accessories on 29.01.14 by paying a sum of Rs.41,509/- which is inclusive of tax. While effecting the sale of the computer system, Op.no.1 had assured one year retail warranty with corporate warranty of 3 years on the entire computer system. The Complainant further submits that, after purchasing the computer system, he installed the same in its shop and has been making use of the computer system in the usual course of its business transaction. On 02.02.15, the monitor plastic stand was broken as a result of breaking of the plastic stand there was damage caused to the monitor of the computer system. The Complainant lodged complaint on 03.02.15 with Ops. A person from LG company visited the shop of the Complainant on 04.02.15, inspected the computer system taken photograph and went away and since then he has not returned back or replaced the broken plastic stand and damaged monitor (hereinafter referred as damaged items). Whenever the Complainant contacted the Ops, the staff of Ops are giving evasive answer and not replaced the said damaged items, even though the breakage and damage has taken place within the period of corporate warranty of 3 years which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on its part.  In this context, Complainant issued legal notice on 16.02.15 to all the Ops. Inspite of service of legal notice, none of the Ops have replied nor replaced the damaged items. As a result, the Complainant could not make use of the computer system and it is lying idle/dead and also he could not render better services to its customers and thereby put to great hardship, mental agony etc., Hence, prays to allow the complaint.

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.2 & 3 did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint except admitting the purchase of computer system by the Complainant. Though notice served on Op.no.1, it did not appear, hence placed exparte. The sum and substance of the version of the Op.no.1 & 2 are that, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and Complainant is not a consumer as defined in sec.2(1)d(i) of CP Act, hence liable to be dismissed.  It is the contention of the Ops that, the said computer stand was not broken as alleged till one year from the date of its purchase, if there was any defect in the said stand, it could be broken down at the earliest point of time from the date of its purchase. And the breakage may caused by external sources i.e. reckless use of the computer system by the Complainant or his family/staff members at the time of cleaning the said computer system and its stand. Ops further submit that, all computer stand manufactured during the time of manufacture of the computer systems and till date these Ops are not received any complaint in respect of the defects in the monitor system stand. Ops further submits that, on receipt of the complaint from Complainant on 03.02.15, the service engineers of Op.no.2 & 3 have visited the shop of the Complainant and verified the same based on the said complaint and at that time they have taken photograph of the said computer system. At the time of verifying the computer system the said service engineers have found that the damage alleged by the Complainant is one physical damage and the same is not a manufacturing defect and the same was explained to the Complainant and intimated him to the said damage would not come under the company warrant as stated in the warranty card of the company issued to the said computer system. On this ground there is no manufacturing defect in the said computer system and its stand. Ops further submit that on same day, the service engineers have given estimation to repair the same, but the Complainant refused it. Hence the service engineers have not rectified the damage of the said computer system. Further submits that, Ops are always ready and willing to repair the said computer system only on the condition that the Complainant has to approve the estimation of service engineers by making payment towards the repair. Ops further submit that, the physical damage is not coming under corporate warranty of the company as there is no manufacturing defect in the said computer system. Hence the grouse of the Complainant is wholly unfounded and baseless. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any kind of relief at the hands of this forum as the conduct of the Complainant is highly questionable. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 5 documents. The Branch Service Manager of Op.no.2 & 3 filed affidavit evidence and none of the documents produced. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable ?
2. If the point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, in that event, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ? 
3. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: Complainant is not entitled for the relief

sought for.

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  Sec.2(d) of the CP Act defines who is the consumer ? In this context for the better appreciation we would like to extract the said provision which reads thus:

(d)  "consumer" means any person who—

(i)    buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)   hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment; 

 

          8. Now we will have to place reliance on the contents of the complaint, wherein the Complainant in para 3, 4, 5 & 6 of his complaint specifically stated which reads thus:

(3) The Complainant is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of dealing in automobile spare parts and allied products having its place of business in Journalist colony, Bengaluru.

(4) The Op.no.1 is a dealer of computer and electronic goods of LG brand and allied products, having its place of business in SJP road, Bengaluru. The Op.no.2 is the manufacturer of electronic goods under the brand name of LG having its Regional office at Nelamangala, Bengaluru. The Op.no.3 is the authorized service centre of LG products, having its place of business/service centre at K.H.Road, Bengaluru.

(5) The Complainant intended to purchase a complete set of computer system for the purpose of its business transaction. The Complainant went to the retail shop room of the Op.no.1 and purchased a complete set of LG brand computer system with accessories vide tax invoice no.10394 dtd.29.01.14 by paying a sum of Rs.41,509/- which is inclusive of tax. While effecting the sale of the computer system, Op.no.1 had assured one year retail warranty with corporate warranty of 3 years on the entire computer system.

(6) After purchasing the computer system, the Complainant installed the same in its shop and has been making use of the computer system in the usual course of its business transaction. On 02.02.15, the monitor plastic stand was broken as a result of breaking of the plastic stand there was damage caused to the monitor of the computer system.

 

9. If the above contents of the complaint with reference to Sec.2(1)d(ii) are strictly construed, one thing is clear that, the Complainant will not come within the purview of the Sec.2(d) of the CP Act, as he has purchased the computer for the purpose of his business. In this context, we place reliance on the decisions reported in I (1991) CPJ 145 (NC) = 1991 (1) CPR 389 (NC) = 1991 CPC 56 (NC). In the said decisions, it is specifically held that, Complainant company therein had bought the computer system for a commercial purpose and is, therefore, he is not a “consumer” as defined in the CP Act. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. In the instant case also, the facts of the present case on hand and also the facts of the decisions cited supra are similar in nature. Further, the said decisions rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission is binding in nature. In this context, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to get redress their remedy before the competent court of law having got jurisdiction to try the same. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

  10. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.  

 

11. Point no.3: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  

 

          2. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Complainant to get redress their remedy before the competent court of law having got jurisdiction to try the same.

 

3. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 21^st February 2018).

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Mahendrakumar, Proprietor, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Tax invoice dtd.29.01.14
Doc.no.2	Warranty info
Doc.no.3	Legal notice dtd.16.02.15
Doc.no.4	Postal receipts
Doc.no.5	Postal acknowledgements

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.T.Jaya Kishor, who being the Branch Service Manager of Op.no.2 & 3 was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

NIL -

 

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT