C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/2013/102     

COMPLAINANT                  :           Kakali Banerjee

                                    W/o Bikash Banerje

                                    Vill. Kanchkuli, Dharmada,

                                    P.O. Dharmada, P.S. Nakashipara,

                                    Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP   :   Prasun Nath

                                    Prop. of Burima Computer Centre,

                                    Vill & P.O. Dharmada,

                                    P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT

   : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                         :    2^nd June, 2014

:    J U D G M E N T    :

The complainant, Kakali Banerjee of Kanchkuli, Dharmada P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the OP, Prasun Nath, Prop of Burima Computer Centre, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia. 

                  Case of the petitioner :-

The petitioner purchased a photo copy machine (Xerox) and a computer (assembled) from Burima Computer Centre for an amount of Rs. 42,170/- vide two invoices / cash memos viz, invoice No. BCC/272/12-13 dtd. 01.10.12 for an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and invoice No. BCC/260/12-13 dtd. 14.09.13  for an amount of Rs. 25,170/. Within a short period, both the machines stopped working and so the petitioner was compelled to bring those machines to the shop of the opposite party for repair.  But OP refused to give service to the petitioner on various pretexts and also settled her to the help of local muscle man.   The petitioner came to know for the local people that the opposite party is in the habit of cheating his customers.  The petitioner lodged the complaint before the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Nadia but that did not fetch any positive result.  So the petitioner finding no other alternative has come to this Forum and filed the instant case with the following prayers.

1. Direction upon the OP to refund the cost of the Xerox machine as well as the computer whose total purchase price is Rs. 42, 170/-.
2. Direction upon the OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for his sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

The Opposite party has contested the case by filing written version.  The OP in his written version has admitted that he has sold an assembled computer and a Xerox machine to the petitioner vide cash memo No. BCC/260/12-13 dtd. 12.09.2012 and cash memo No. BCC/272/12-13 dtd. 01.10.12.  The computer, printer and the Xerox machine were brought by the petitioner for repair, but he could not take the responsibility of repairing the same because all the products were within the warranty period and as per condition of sale which was clearly mentioned in the cash memo that “Warranty on all products is subject to the products principle or by their authorized service centre.”  OP’s submission is that when the petitioner is aware of the condition then why she is putting the blame on him and why she is harassing him by instituting the instant case.  The OP tried his level best to help her by providing with the toll free numbers of the service centre like HP, Beetel, Logitech, Compac, AOC along with addresses and locations so that she could log her complaint and get the services from the principal companies.  OP also submits that the services of all IT products are always provided but the principal offices according to terms and conditions mentioned in the respective warranty service manual and therefore, he is not the right person to give relief to the petitioner.  So the OP prays before the Forum for passing a proper order for sake of natural justice and submits that he is not deficient in his service. 

From the pleadings, written version as well as well as documents filed by the parties and after going through the affidavit-in-chief of by the PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2 we frame the following issues for adjudication of the case.

ISSUES

Point No. 1             Is the complainant a consumer under the OPs?

Point No. 2                Is there any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

Point No. 3                Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Point No.  1

            The petitioner is a consumer under the OP as she paid Rs. 42,170/- for purchasing the computer and Xerox machine and the OP issued two cash memos after receiving the consideration money (vide annexed documents)

Point Nos. 2 & 3:

Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 

            The OP is the service provider under which the petitioner is a consumer from the cash memos we find that that product warranty is to be given by the principal company or by the authorized service centre and OP being the dealer has got no legal or financial liability for the same.  It can be well understood by any person that when the petitioner put her signature on the cash memo she had done it only after reading and understanding the terms and conditions of the deal.  So OP has not committed any wrong by not giving service to the petitioner as he was not the correct person to do so.  Moreover, the petitioner did not make the principal companies like Beetel, Logitech, HP parties to the instant case.  The case law referred by the petitioner reported in II (2010) CPJ 466 is not a befitting one since the instant case filed by the petitioner also suffers from nonjoinder of parties as the manufactures are not made parties to this case.   Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party as she has failed to prove her case.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2013/102 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.