BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-18/2020
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President,
Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Sri Rabin Kaudi
S/o Sri Kausik Kaudi
At:-Bhalubahal, PO:-Ardabahal,
Tahasil:-Kuchinda, PS:-Mahulpali
Dist:- Sambalpur, Pin-768222 ………Complainant
Versus
Sri Nihar Ranjan Patel
(Nihar Computers Kuchinda)
At/PO:- Kuchinda(bus Stand)
PS:- Kuchinda, Sambalpur-768222 ……Opp.Party
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Self
- For the O.P :- Self
DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 17.02.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, on dtd.14.02.2020, the Complainant has purchased one Desktop Computer System as per the description in the Tax Invoice, vide No-457 on payment of Rs.18,800/- from the O.P. The Computer was purchased for the Skill development of the Complainant .Being attracted by the offer of the O.P “that if the Computer becomes out of order with the specified period that the O.P will give a brand new Computer in exchange of the defective one”, the Complainant opted to avail the opportunity and purchased the computer system. The said Computer became defective four times from the date of purchase to dtd. 26.06.2020 but the O.P repaired it for three times and handed over to the Complainant instead of replacing the defective one as per his promise. The father of the Complainant visited the O.P on dtd. 08.07.2020 and also made contact over telephone on dtd. 18.07.2020. He requested to replace the same and to provide a new one but the O.P ignored him every time. Due to this the learning of the Complainant became interrupted in half way and he has become harassed by taking the defective computer from his village to Kuchinda which was expensive also. As the O.P has committed Deficiency in service along with Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant, he may be penalised and directed to compensate the Complainant as per the relief prayed.
The O.P in this case has agreed that the Computer was become out of order for four times between dtd 14.02.2020 to dtd.26.06.2020. The father of the Complainant has made contact him on telephone on dtd. 05.05.2020 and brought the defective computer to his workshop on dtd.06.05.2020 and after inspection, it is detected that the “Window Operating System(OS)” was became corrupt and he has installed new “WINDOW” again but it did not worked properly. Thereafter the workshop was remained closed for seven months due to the CORONA Pandemic but still the O.P has provided necessary services secretly without being exposed. After receiving notice from this Commission the O.P has made contact with the father of the Complainant but by that time the warranty against the Computer was expired(dtd.14.08.2020). But the O.P has given as assurance to solve the problem without taking any consideration but thereafter the Complainant has never came to our shop.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Desktop Computer System as per the description in the Tax Invoice, vide No-457 on payment of Rs.18,800/- from the O.P with a promise to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said Desktop Computer System after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P, he could not get it repaired through the Authorised service centre as he (the dealer) has not provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the said Desktop Computer System was within warranty period. The O.P has failed to remove defects from the Desktop Computer System having some manufacturing defects. But OP neither repaired it properly nor did he replaced the defective Desktop Computer System to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of
M/S Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. vs Deepak Aggarwal on 19 September, 2017, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., CHANDIGARH..Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service” of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant.
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.18,800/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Desktop Computer System; He is further directed to pay Rs.8,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; and to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 17th day of February-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
Sd/-17.02.2021 Sd/-17.02.2021
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
Sd/-17.202.2021
PRESIDENT.
