In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
Case No. CC/50 /2015
Date of filing: 20/04/2015. Date of Final Order: 28/09/2016
Pratip Das. S/O- Partha Das.
Residing at Vill.- Gangatala Balighata.
P.O.&P.S.- Jangipur.
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742225.(W.B.)……………………………...Complainant
- Vs-
1). Officer In Charge, HP Head Office,
Kolkata Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited KDLOI,
Kolkata DLF IT Park ( KDL) 08 Major Arterial Road Block AF,
New Town Rajarhat, Kolkata, Pin-700156.
2). Officer -in- Charge, Ensure Support Service India Limited,
HP Authorised Service Centre,
H/No. 7/7, S.P. Road, Ward No.9 ( Near Malda Zilla Parisad)
North Baluchar Malda , Pin.-732101.
3). Proprietor, Delta Computer.
11, Netaji Road. Post Office- Khagra.
P.S.- Berhampore, Dist.- Murshidabad.Pin.-742103. …………......................Opposite Party
Mr.Subhanjan Sengupta., Ld. Advocate……………………………….for the Complainant.
Mr.NilabjaDatta, Ld. Advocate..............……………………………….for the Opposite Party No.3.
Present: Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s- 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for an order directing the OP to replace the said HP Sleek Book, Laptop or to refund the cost value and to pay the cost of litigation and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as Compensation for harassment and mental agony.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a HP Sleekbook 14-B157TU TS from the OP No.3 on 13.5.2013. He detected many problems in the said HP Sleekbook and as such to repair those problems he approached the opposite parties for times. Instead of repairing the problems he was harassed by the OPs. The act of the OP was to commit and perpetuate fraud practice upon this complainant and the OPs are deficient in providing service to this complainant for which the complainant preferred the recourse of this Forum for redressal.
The OP No.1 & 2 did not appear and filed no written version so the proceedings run ex-parte against them.
The OP No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written version denying the allegations as levelled against them and averred that the complainant purchased the said HP Sleek Book Laptop from the answering OP No.3 but he did not inform this OP regarding the trouble but informed the OP No.2 and there after the said Laptop was send to the Kolkata Office for repairing. He assailed that if there is any deficiency of service that is upon OP No.1&2 but not upon OP No.3. After getting information he then and there made correspondence with HP officials for solving problem of the complainant so the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he averred that he purchased the said Hp Sleek Book from the OP No.3 and he detected many problems in the said device and for repairing the same approached the Opposite parties for times without number but instead of repairing the same the OPs went on harassing the complainant. So the complainant filed the instant complaint for redressal. He submitted a few documents in photocopies and prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.
The argument as advanced by the parties/agents heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant ‘Pratip Das’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant ‘Pratip Das’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein purchased the device from the OP No.3 and OP No.2 is the servicing centre and OP No.1 is the head office of the said producing company and it is admitted by the OP No.3 the seller of the product.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
Perusing the case record & documents annexed and hearing the arguments as advanced by the parties in dispute it appears that the complainant purchased one HP Sleek Book, Computer from the OP No.3 on 13.5.2013 and the said computer was not functioning properly so the complainant approached the OP praying for proper redress. Annexure- A i.e. the service call report of Radington ( India) Limited, HP authorised service centre reflects that issue reported is ‘ Touch Screen’, Repair remarks, ‘I received the Laptop, Laptop is ready ‘ as on 11.11.2014. Another annexure-‘E’ i.e. service report of the Ensure Support Service (India) Ltd, HP authorised service centre, the Op No.2 reflects that Issue Description, ‘Touch Screen Issue’ and the customer comments, ‘Touch Screen problem has been running as same and with words wilan cann’t work and base encounter is broken when it came from Kolkata HP servicing centre and the customer is fully fed up & wordless because HP could not solve the problem at till, dated 11.12.2014. There after he filed a petition stating his problem before the OP dated 22.12.2014 and prayed for replacing the inoperative computer by new one or monetary compensation within 15 days in default will be compelled to take the recourse of law before appropriate Forum. When the OP took no positive steps at the utterance of the complainant then he compelled to take the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of complaint. The agent of the OP No.3 argued that he being the seller took initiative and put the problem of the complainant before the OP No.1&2 through mail dated Dec.26, 2014 &May8,2015 and requested to solve the problem as the complainant filed a petition before the court. Instead of taking any positive steps the responsible person who should have solve the problem did not put his appearance & filed no written version after getting information regarding this complaint case but remained silent.
In Indochem Electronics Vs. Addl. Collector of Customs (2006)3 SCC 721, wherein while considering the provisions of Sec.3 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 this court was of the view that when the deficiency began to manifest themselves it was the duty of the suppliers to attend to such deficiencies immediately and if the supplier was unable to attend to the deficiencies and malfunctioning of the system soon after installation, it would amount to ‘deficiency of service’. Further more, when the deficiencies in the system continued to persist during the warranty period, including the extended period, the suppliers were rightly held to be liable for deficiency in service by the State and the National Commission. It was also held that in the light of the specific power conferred under Sec. 14(1) (c) of the aforesaid Act, damages equivalent to price of goods could be awarded, despite the provisions of Sec.12(3) of the Sale of Goods Act,1930, as the provisions of the 1986 Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of law.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complainant abled to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent document/evidence. However considering the facts and circumstances there is order as to cost. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP No.1&2 tantamount to deficiency in service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could prove his case beyond any doubt so he is entitled to get compensation from the OP No.1&2.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1&2, with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.4000/-.
The OP No.3 is exonerated from his liability.
The OP No.1&2 are directed to replace the HP Sleek Book Laptop by a new one or to pay the cost of the impugned device which the OP No.2 failed to repair with the intervention of OP No.1 and they are also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- jointly and /or severally to this complainant for harassment and mental agony of the complainant within 45 days from the passing this order
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by registered post with A/D forthwith, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member, Member.
