IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                                  MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No. CC/128/2014

Date of Filing: 11.09.2014                                                          Date of Final Order: 20.05.2015

Sudipta Basak,

S/o- Nani Gopal Basak,

120/1 Bibekanada Road, Ranibagan,

P.O.& P.S.-Berhampore,

District.- Murshidabad,W.B.                           …………….…………………………………Complainant.

-Vs-

 Saikat Pal Prop. of System Edge,

 Dell Sales & Service Provider,

73/1, Pilkhana Road, Ranibagan,

P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad  …….……………….….…..……............Opposite Party.

Sri Sudipta Basak in person…………………………..……………………… for the complainant

Sri Subhanjan Sengupta. Ld. Advocate    ……………….……………….. for the Opposite Party

                           Present:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                               Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

                                               Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.   

                                                      FINAL ORDER

 Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.

Brief fact of the case as enumerated in the petition of complaint is that the petitioner/complainant being a consumer of OP purchased one set computer with accessories on 03.10.2012 from System Edge. As the Monitor of the said Computer set was not functioning properly, the complainant returned back the Monitor within 10 days to the OP on 12.10.2012. On 15.10.2012 the OP returned back 1 old worn, shabby Monitor for stand- by working. As the performance of the replaced Monitor was not at all good the complainant objected, then the OP promised to replace new monitor of same purchased type quality as soon as possible. The old replaced monitor was not functioning properly and it was strenuous to the eyes of the complainant so he visited the place of OP on every month for getting his purchased quality monitor. But his all request was unaddressed by the OP. Finally on 18.07.2014 the replaced old monitor became nonfunctioning. Then he returned the old shabby nonfunctioning monitor to System Edge. After elapsing one month of depositing the said monitor, the System Edge & its Service Provider Dell was not returning his monitor in working condition and refused the request of the complainant then he filed the instant case for redressal to return the purchased quality Computer Monitor or to refund the value of the monitor i.e. Rs.5,575/-.

OP appeared and filed Written Version on 28.10.2014 and denied the allegations as leveled against him. He averred that the complainant was a customer of this OP and availed of service to his desktop, laptop and printers whenever required even sometimes after the closure of the office of the OP. According to the version of the OP the complainant purchased one set of computer from this OP on 3.10.2012 of which the Dell make 18.5 inch monitor bearing serial No.CN-098W4H-72872-1C1-E6RS was reported on 12.10.2012 to be not working properly. Then the answering OP instantly provided one stand monitor so that the complainant might carry out his work uninterruptedly and subsequently lodged a complaint with the Dell Service and immediately that was replaced by Dell Service on 15.10.2012, the replacement serial being no.CN-0321DV-72872-174-AK4I. The monitor was delivered on the same day and this opposite party had written the serial no of the replaced monitor on the back side of his original Tax invoice for future references. In response to a complaint lodged by this complainant on18.07.2014 as to that the PC had no display, the OP sent its engineers who saw that the serial no sticker was missing from the back of the monitor. Through a phone call the complainant requested to do the needful. As the there was no serial no at the back of the monitor this OP lodged a complaint with the Dell Services stating the serial number mentioned at the back of the original Tax Invoice. On enquiry by Dell Service this OP could not provide all the details since the sticker containing the serial number, date and place of manufacture and model number were missing from the back of the monitor due to manhandling of the complainant. Dell service was not convinced that it was the same replaced monitor which they did earlier and according to them that the responsibility of the customers/ users to maintain the proof of the identity of the materials they purchased or replaced. By stating the provisions of Consumer Protection Act the OP averred that the complainant could not attribute the “Consumer Dispute” and “Deficiency” so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.  

The evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant on 20.01.2015 in which he averred that he has every right to beg justice before this Forum as the OP was harassing him since 15.10.2012 for the computer monitor. He denied the allegations made by the OP in his written version.

 The OP filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but a replica of written version so it is needless to discuss.

That on 06.05.2015 both sides present personally and advanced argument in full.          

              From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant Sudipta Basak is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the       case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?                                               

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 Sudipta Basak 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)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP business shop is entitled to get service from the OP business shop.

     (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 at Rs.5,575/- ad valorem which is 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?             

The complaint case is that complainant purchased one assembled computer set with accessories on 03.10.2012 from System Edge (O.P.). As the Monitor of the said Computer set was not functioning properly, the complainant returned back the Monitor within 10 days to the OP on 12.10.2012.  So the OP, on 15.10.2012 returned back 1 old worn, shabby Monitor for stand- by working. As the performance of the replaced Monitor was not at all good the complainant objected, then the OP promised to replace new monitor of same purchased type quality as soon as possible. The old replaced monitor was not functioning properly, so he visited the place of OP on every month for getting his purchased quality monitor. But his all request was unaddressed by the OP. Finally on 18.07.2014 the replaced old monitor became nonfunctioning. Then he returned the old shabby nonfunctioning monitor to System Edge. After elapsing one month of depositing the said monitor, the System Edge & its Service Provider Dell was not returning his monitor in working condition and refused the request of the complainant then he filed the instant case for redressal to return the purchased quality Computer Monitor or to refund the value of the monitor i.e. Rs.5,575/-.

OP appeared and filed Written Version on 28.10.2014 and denied the allegation as leveled against him. He averred that the complainant was a customer of this OP and availed of service to his desktop, laptop and printers whenever required. According to the version of the OP the complainant purchased one set of computer from this OP on 3.10.2012 of which the Dell make 18.5 inch monitor bearing serial no. CN-098W4H-72872-1C1-E6RSwas reported on 12.10.2012 to be not working properly. Then the answering OP instantly provided one stand monitor so that the complainant might carry out his work uninterruptedly and subsequently lodged a complaint with the Dell Service and immediately that was replaced by Dell Service on 15.10.2012, the replacement serial no.CN-0321DV-72872-174-AK4I. The monitor was delivered on the same day and this opposite party had written the serial no of the replaced monitor on the back side of his original Tax invoice for future references. In response to a complaint lodged by this complainant on18.07.2014 as to that the PC had no display, the OP sent its engineers who saw that the serial no sticker was missing from the back of the monitor. Through a phone call the complainant requested to do the needful. As the there was no serial no at the back of the monitor this OP lodged a complaint with the Dell Services stating the serial number mentioned at the back of the original Tax Invoice. On enquiry by Dell Service this OP could not provide all the details since the sticker containing the serial number, date and place of manufacture and model number were missing from the back of the monitor due to manhandling of the complainant. Dell service was not convinced that it was the same replaced monitor which they did earlier and according to them that the responsibility of the customers/ users to maintain the proof of the identity of the materials they purchased or replaced.

    The purchase of the computer set including accessories by this complainant is not denied by the OP. But the allegation of the complainant is that the answering OP did not deliver the monitor which the OP received from the Producer of the article i.e. Dell. By filing written version OP assailed that he returned the monitor to the complainant that he received from the Dell but no documentary evidence is adduced to prove his claim except writing a serial No of the disputed monitor on the back side of the In Voice without seal & signature. The complainant lodged a complaint before the OP within 10 days of purchasing the article but within the warrantee period.  So the complainant is entitled to get service from the either OP or the manufacturing Company. The complainant in his evidence on affidavit averred that OP changed the defective monitor by an old standby monitor on 15.10.2012. He also assailed that when the standby monitor was not working properly then he returned the same to the OP on18.07.2014 and waited for a considerable period for getting the Monitor changed and when he did not get the Monitor changed then he filed the instant complaint before this Forum only to get the Monitor being changed or to get the value of the said Monitor amounting to Rs.5,575/- apart from extra gain in the head of compensation for mental Pain and Agony and Litigation Cost and others.

 From the Written Version it is crystal clear that the OP received a new Monitor in ex-change of the monitor of this complainant from the manufacturer i.e. DELL. But OP could not even produce a single paper from which we can come into this conclusion that he delivered the same immediately to this complainant. He replaced the defective monitor immediately after the purchase by an old stand-by monitor. The complainant continued his work by the old Monitor from 15.10.2012 to 18.07.2014. In the meantime he several times visited the place of the OP for getting new monitor of purchased type quality. But his effort of getting new monitor became frustrated at the non co-operation of OP.

 From the documents, complaint petition, written version & evidence on affidavit by the parties we come into this conclusion that OP is liable to deliver a  new monitor to the complainant of purchased type quality or the cost of Rs.5,575/- including interest. As the OP being a businessman harassed the complainant and tried to evade his responsibility by the lame excuse of damaging sticker by the complainant due to manhandling, so he is also liable to pay fine amounting to Rs.2000/- to be deposited in the fund of Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the OP is not up to the mark as a businessman.  

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 is able to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt. So, the Opposite Party is liable to deliver a new Monitor or pay the cost of Monitor to this Complainant including interest and fine of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the fund of Consumer Legal Aid Account as we deem fit and proper.

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?

As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party cannot be ousted and as such the complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite party.

So, we direct the Opposite Party to deliver a new Monitor of purchased type quality or to pay a sum of Rs.5,575/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 11.09.2014 to the complainant within a period of 40 days from the date of order. We also impose fine upon OP, amounting to Rs.2000/- for unfair trade practice, and the amount to be deposited in the fund of Consumer Legal Aid Account. No other relief(s) is awarded to the complainant.

      At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 40 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

          Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary  post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                                      Member                                                 President,

   District Consumer Disputes                District Consumer Disputes                             District Consumer Disputes                   

Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.       Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                   Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.