DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 814/2016
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ASHU AHUJA S/o Sh. M.L. AHUJA,
R/o B-91, PUSHPANJALI ENCLAVE,
PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI-110034. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s PERFECT COMPUTER SYSTEMS-G-2,
M.G. HOUSE, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
WAZIRPUR INDL. AREA, DELHI-110052.
2. AFFORESERVE.COM LTD.,
(MSI SERVICE CENTRE),
B-21, 1st& 2nd FLOOR, SEC.-8,
NOIDA, (U.P.).
NEAR J.P. WOOLEN FACTORY. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 05.08.2016
Date of decision:05.06.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a computer vide cash memo no. PCS/RI/ 722/15-16 dated 11.11.2015 from OP-1. The complainant further alleged that the graphic card PCI express ATIA73602GB stopped working in February-2016 and on making complaint to OP-1, the
CC No.814/2016 Page 1 of 6
employee took the graphic card in February-2016 but deposited it for repair in OP-2 on 29.03.2016. Thereafter, OP-1 kept on delaying and harassing the complainant and so many days OP-1 told the complainant that graphic card is not repairable and gave the complainant receipt of service centre and asked the complainant to bring the graphic card from service centre and OP-2 was in Nehru Place before but now OP-2 has moved to Noida. The complainant further alleged that the cost of the graphic card is Rs.10,200/- and the warrantee of the said product is for 3 years and instead of returning the money OPs have been harassing the complainant and have caused a lot of mental agony and hence the act of OPs is clearly unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to take suitable action against OPs.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed separate replies/written statement. In the reply/written statement, OP-1 submitted that the complainant has purchased different parts of the computer from OP-1 on 11.11.2015 on the occasion of Diwali, after about 4 months, the complainant approached OP-1 as he is facing some problem in graphic card and OP-1 advised the complainant to directly approach OP-2, the manufacturer company of the graphic card as only the company of the product give a warrantee of the product and it has been specifically mentioned on the bill issued by OP-1 and the complainant directly talked with the
CC No.814/2016 Page 2 of 6
employee of OP-1 to get his graphic card got repaired from OP-2 for which he agreed to pay the expanses to the employee of OP-1 and OP-1 has no role in these talks held between the complainant and Rakesh, the employee of OP-1 and the employee of OP-1 get the graphic card of the complainant deposited with OP-2 to get the same repaired against proper receipt and handed over the said original receipt to the complainant. OP-1 further submitted that the employee of OP-1 received an e-mail dated 08.04.2016 from OP-2 that the aforesaid graphic card was received by OP-2 in damaged condition as such they cannot consider it under warrantee as per the terms & conditions and the employee of OP-1 accordingly informed the said fact to the complainant who instead of colleting his graphic card from OP-2 has filed the complaint.
4. In its written statement, OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against OP-2 as it is not liable for any refund amount of alleged Graphic Card PCI Express ATIA73602GB sold by OP-1 which was originally produced by another company M/s MSI Co. Ltd. for the replacement of the said graphic card or any other deficiency since inception because neither the complainant has purchased the alleged graphic card from OP-2 nor OP-2 is the principal producer of the said graphic card.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1.
CC No.814/2016 Page 3 of 6
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. PCS/RI/722/15-16 dated 11.11.2015 for Rs.35,150/- issued by OP-1 showing price of PCT Express ATI B7 360 2GB i.e. Graphic Card at Rs.10,200/- and copy of Goods Receipt Note no.76 dated 29.03.2016 issued by OP-2.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Lalit Garg, Prop. of OP-1 and Sh. Arpit Sukhwal, Authorized Representative of OP-2 filed their affidavits in evidence which are as per line of defence taken by OPs in the reply/written statement. OP-1 also filed the copy of e-mail communication dated 08.04.2016. OP-2 also filed the copy of Memorandum of Association and copy of MSI RMA Centre Service Agreement. OPs have also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OPs. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OPs have not disputed the factum of sale of graphic card of Rs.10,200/- on 11.11.2015 to the complainant by OP-1 vide an invoice dated 11.11.2015. OPs neither in their replies nor in their evidence have disputed that the said graphic card carries warrantee of 3 years. Furthermore, OP-1 in its reply and evidence has not disputed the fact that the complainant complained about non-working of the graphic card in February-
CC No.814/2016 Page 4 of 6
2016 and the fact that the complainant deposited the same for repair with OP-1 and it is not also disputed by OPs that the said graphic card was deposited with OP-2 on 29.03.2016 for repair/ removal of problem of “No display” vide service receipt/job card no. 76 dated 29.03.2016. In the said receipt OP-2 has not mentioned that the graphic card was in damaged condition and it was not mentioned therein that a component was missing from the said graphic card.
9. If the graphic card deposited with OP-2 was having Customer Induced Damage then OP-2 ought to have mentioned/written this fact in the job card/service sheet no. 76 dated 29.03.2016. As the said fact is not mentioned in the job card by OP-2 so we are of opinion that OP-2 has deliberately taken a false defence and has concocted the story which is not believable. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his product to his newly purchased product or would use the same in negligent manner. As OPs have failed to rectify/repair the problem and the same could not be resolved by OP-2 the service center and as such OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, OPs are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
10. Accordingly, both OPs jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,200/- being the
CC No.814/2016 Page 5 of 6
price of the disputed graphic card on return of the original job sheet.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OPs jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OPs fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 5th day of June, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.814/2016 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET
