DISTRICT COSNSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 31st day of August 2016.
C.C.No.73 of 2015.
Ashok Kumar Rout, age- 45 years son of Sudhir Kumar rout.
Resident of A.B.S.S.Road, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist-
Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Sandeep Bhattacharya, Journal Service Manager,
At-Hewlett Packard India sales Pvt. Ltd.KDL. 01 Kolkata
DLF IT Park (KDL) 08, Major Arterial Road, Block AF,
New Town, Rajarhat,Kolkata-700156.
2.Aruima Ghosh, Special Effection Manager.
At- Hewlett Packard India sales Pvt. Ltd.KDL. 01 Kolkata
DLF IT Park (KDL) 08, Major Arterial Road, Block AF,
New Town, Rajarhat,Kolkata-700156.
3.Debasish Maity, Area Service Manager,
At- Hewlett Packard India sales Pvt. Ltd.KDL. 01 Kolkata
DLF IT Park (KDL) 08, Major Arterial Road, Block AF,
New Town, Rajarhat,Kolkata-700156.
4.Balangir Infosys, Authorised Dealer ofHP LapTop.
At-A.B.S.S.Road, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist-
Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri A.K.Tripathy.
Adv. for the O.Ps - Sri S.K.Mohanty.
Date of filing of the case-19.09.2015
Date of order -31.08.2016
JUDGMERNT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.Parties.
2. Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Lap top of HP-15 R007 T, 15.6” from the shop “Bolangir Infosys” against consideration of Rs 41,550/-, receipt No. 14 on dated 02.09.2014 along with some accessories.
3. The complainant averred posts purchase the laptop although worked properly, latter on multiple defect surfaced and in ultimate stopped functioning. Intimated the complain to the dealer, service centre and manufacturer repeated and also made approach in rectification of same. It is also submitted the complaint has been attended by authorized engineer but the defect not rectified satisfactorily and persistently remain. The authorized engineer due to repeated fail and removal of parts did not yield any result, thus concluded as the defect is inherent in nature.
4. Further stated, the complainant made earnest request to O.Ps to take immediate measure as the non-functioned set hampering his study for the purpose, it is purchased. In constraint give pleader notice on dt.04.07.2015 and dated 25.07.2015, which did not elicit any response, which is a great irreparable loss, contributing to loss, harassment and mental agony. Prayed cost, compensation as deems fit on the interest of justice, relying in money receipt, pleader notice in photo copy and latter on job card & receipt in original and affidavit..
5. In pursuant to forum’s notice, the O.Ps appeared and made their version in the manners as below:-
O.Ps 1,2 & 3 are in this case are manufacturer and the conjoint version contended that there is no privity of contract with the complainant and complaint field against them arraying in the personal capacity is no more maintainable and needs to be dismissed. Admitted the decision and orders passed by the Hon’ble forum can only be taken up by the company i.e “Hawlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd.” not in their present capacity.
6. Also added, the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of the laptop is defective without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 13(i) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
7. The petitioner submission of allegation is frivolous, baseless, and liable for rejection as the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in laptop in absence of an expert report, miserably fails and suffers barred in non adherence to Sec.13(1) ( c ) of the Act as envisaged in statute.
8. Further stated ,the issues reported in the laptop within the warranty period were attended with promptly and the reported issues were resolved by carrying out the repair/service and replacement of the required part as per the terms of the warranty and the laptop in question is working fine but the complainant though advised on the warranty provision and because of his fanciful attitude demanding refund and replacement which is not sustainable as per the law,
9. Further averred from the date 31st Jan 2014 to 29.10.2015 vide different job card id mentioned in the pleadings, the reported issues of Hinges, CD DVD no power in disk drive, operating system, Bios updated, operative disk drive replaced, Boot issue/SSP have been satisfactorily resolved and the consumer/complainant has appreciated the services of the service centre in customer comment column and commented as excellent job, very good but insisting for replacement without any known issues or manufacturing defect raised for an unjust enrichment by trying his luck, which has no cause of action.
not entitled for relief and being without any merit is liable to be dismissed with cost. The prayer are based, frivolous, misconceived in every respect.
10. In obligation to forum’s notice, the O.P.4 made the version in admitting that M/S. Bolangir infosys deals in electronic goods and is a trader. Also admitted and confirmed that he has sold goods to Sri Ashok Kumar Rout, Bolangir by sale invoice bearing No.460 on dated 28th Sept 2014 Further admission that the consumer be replaced with a laptop but it failed due to the rules and regulations of the company. He is being the retailer no liability can be fastened as the warranty give in by the parent company and the answering O.P does not have any legal or financial liability to render as it is expressed in the retail invoice and cash memo No.4 dt.02.09.2014.
11. Further contended goods once sold can not be taken back, prayed the forum in giving proper justice, as a judgment in favour of the consumer Ashoka Kumar rout as he has suffered harassment for his laptop.
12. Heard the parties at length and extensive submission, thereof, perused the record.
13. On the outset, we find, it is indisputable, the HP brand product has been transacted. But the core question relates deficiency of service committed at respective parties end.
14. Perusal of record reveals, on dated 02.09.2014, one cash memo Sl No.14 has been issued in favour of “Bishwa Sagar Rout” in purchase of one laptop computer on specification as indicated in the complaint application. Subsequently it is come across, one retail invoice No.410 has been issued in favour of “Ashoka Kumar Rout” being the complainant, which is a computer generated one and dated 28th Sept 2014. The onsite warranty job card reveals, the customer is “Biswa Sagar Rout” and customer’s contacting person “Ashoka Kumar Rout, it is clearly evident from the original copy issued by “Ensure Support Services (India) Limited, HP Authorized service centre being pressed into service that issuing two receipt in different dates for same purpose is malafide, preposterous and manufactured for unjust enrichment.
15. Further it is come to knowledge, the shop/trader, Bolangir Infosys is not an authorized dealer of Hawlett-Packard herein after knows as “HP”. So the complainant misrepresented the court under affidavit that in purchase of the “HP” Laptop product, he is a consumer and having the locus standi to file a case in an unclean manner. As because in made out a case the computer generated retail invoice has been connivingly procured although the original cash memo retained in the name of “Bishwa Sagar Rout”.
16. Further perusal of the record spells, the O.Ps ensured rectification of the laptop respectively on dated 31.01.2015 to 19.06.2015 restored and replaced such as No power, operating disk drive, Bios updated, Boot issue and replacement of Mother Board with excellent remark and good job comment given by the customer “Bishwa Sagar Rout” in service call report and the unit is running good. Neither it is dead nor complete non-functioned one when an unit is functioning properly, it does not warrant a replacement for the whims & fancy of the customer. Even no prayer has been accorded in the complaint petition for refund, replacement or any specified defect that persists on the date of complaint. To succeed in the case the complainant must be fastened under 13(1)( c) & (d) in call for a expert report in absence of same manufacturing defect or inherent manufacturing defect the case is no more tenable.
17. On the contrary, pursuant of record reveals, “Bolangir Infosys” hereinafter O.P.No.4 is not an authorized dealer of H.P company thereby the trader adopts unfair method deceptive practice u/s.,2(r)(1) of the Act misleading the consumer in various ways, such commission of negligence amply evidential in issue of repeated money receipts and assurance of comprehensive service inclusive replacement etc. The original printed money receipt has been issued with no VAT paid and the latter manufactured computer print out invoice No.460 issued with VAT paid and with TIN No. in favour of Ashoka Kumar Rout, which is a collusive exercise in going through pleadings, assertions and recommendation in the written submission of O.P.No.4. At the instance of the O.P.4 the defective laptop has not placed before the forum and No expert report on manufacturing report has been procured and warranty card is submitted for consideration being the product with highly technical one, which establish the non-functional of the set is mere assertion of the defect and Non-authorized dealer being incapable of rendering service has designed the plan in unjust enrichment of the petitioner.
18. Again as per the rule the relationship betweenO.Ps1,2 and O.P.4 is principal to principal and selling the product in question is obligatory on each part. Each are independent and equal. On that score O.P.4 has resiled not rendering ay service and made distance in resolving the issue on the sake of manufacturing defect and the entire record protrudes the company i.e HP has rendered the rectification in satisfaction of the customer/complainant but O.P.No.4 mis-utilised the name, fame of HP and trading principle in issuing false receipts, tampering with customer name being in fictitious one and irresponsibly involved in unfair trade practice u/s.2 (r)(1) of the C.P.Act.
19. In absence of any expert report as sought u/s.13(1)© and (d), no inherent manufacturing defect is proved /established thereby the manufacturing concern on the specific issue cannot be fastened at any more after rendering satisfactory service as per the service call report with no cogent evidence to contrary.
20. In view of the afore going discussion, we considerably allow the case on contest. Do not find any negligence on the part of O.Ps 1,2 &3. The fault imperfection, shortcoming nature and manner of performance & in relation to service, on the part of the trader is conspicuous deficient, dismal and defeating to the spirit of the act. Such deficiency makes liable to repay or replace as the complainant opt for.
Hence ordered;-
ORDER.
The O.P.No.4 (Bolangir Infosys) is herewith directed to replace with new HP Laptop in exchange of old one at disposal of the customer. Non availability of New HP Laptop of same specification/configuration, the O.P.4 is liable to pay Rs 41,550/- minus depreciation of 15% Rs 6,232/- = Rs 35,318/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand, three hundred eighteen) only to the petitioner within 35 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum will accrue on the net amount from the date of application till realization.
No order as to compensation and cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
(S,Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.
