C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/47                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Mainak Ghosal, 240W/3

P.O. Fulia Township, 

Fulia Colony, Dist. Nadia

West Bengal, Pin – 741402

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP          : Sri Ayan Adhikary,

Owner – Computer Zone,

Fulia Station Para (N) 

Fulia Colony, Dist. Nadia

 

 

 

PRESENT              :  SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

         

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    23rd October, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one computer on 10.02.08 from the OP, Sri Ayan Adhikary which shortly yielded to malfunctioning.  He reported this to the OP who asked him to transfer the PC to his disposal for servicing.  He complied with this resulting in a tampered cable of the PC's monitor.   The OP  vendor did not repair the said PC rather suggested him to repair the PC from external market or to seek the help of the Manufacturing Company.  

Page 2 of 4

Accordingly, this complainant tried to repair the monitor from local Chandini Chowk Market, Kolkata, but failed.  So he reported the matter to the Manufacturing Company's RT Outsourcing Wing.  It was the duty and obligation to OP to repair the PC which he did not do.   So it is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence this case is filed claiming compensation amounting Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 1,000/- as repairing cost along with litigation cost and other reliefs.

The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that he sold a computer including monitor, printer, UPS etc. to the complainant on 10.02.08.  It is his further submission that subsequently the complainant damaged in the screw-up system of the cable jack while he tried to disconnect the monitor from CPU.  It is his further submission that warranty is given by the manufacturing company and this OP only arranges the service by giving the Toll Free No. of the Service Centre, i.e., RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. with address and others which are provided by the Principal Company, i.e., Acer India (Pvt.) Ltd.   But the company is not ready to give any free warranty for physically damaged computer.

In the present case, this complainant damaged the cable by using force, as a result of which the company did not give any free service.  So this OP has no deficiency in service to this complainant and he has no liability to repair the monitor of the computer alleged by the complainant.  In the above cited circumstances, the complainant is not at all entitled to get any compensation as claimed by him.  So the case is liable to be dismissed against him.

 

POINTS FOR DECISION

 

Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:         Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

Point No.3:      Is the complainant entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

Page 3 of 4

DECISION WITH REASONS

 

All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

Admittedly, the complainant purchased one PC from the OP on 10.02.08 at a price of Rs. 17,200/- vide 'Annexure - 3'.  It is the specific case of the complainant that within a short time after purchase, the PC was not functioning properly, as a result of which he asked the OP to repair the same.  At the request of the OP he also took the PC to the shop of the OP, who ultimately did not repair the same and finally it was repaired by the RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.   So being harassed by the OP, he has filed this case claiming for compensation.  Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation as claimed by him?  From the submission of the complainant at the time of the argument it is available that he himself damaged the PC, when he tried to disconnect the monitor from the CPU at the shop of the OP.  On this point it is the specific contention of the OP that as per terms of Warranty, the manufacturer of the PC, Acer India Pvt. Ltd. is to repair the defects of the PC within the warranty period, but not a physically damaged one.  On this point, he has drawn our attention to the Warranty Terms of the Acer India from where it is available that rule 5(a) speaks that the warranty shall be rendered null and void if the product is physically damaged.   It is admitted by the complainant at the time of argument that he himself damaged the PC though it is his case that the monitor was not functioning properly.  But the OP did not get the chance to examine the monitor, rather the PC was damaged by the complainant himself when he produced the same before the OP.  From the Warranty Terms it is also available that this OP is not liable for repairing of the PC though he sold the same to the complainant.  The manufacturer, Acer India Pvt. Ltd. is the sole authority to repair a defective PC if the same is produced 

Page 4 of 4

within the warranty period but not a physically damaged one.  There is no whisper in the petition of the complainant and no specific date is mentioned by the complainant when the defect of the PC was detected by him nor the date is mentioned when he produced it before the the OP for repair or contacted with him also.  From 'Annexure - 4' it is available that the PC was repaired by the RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. on 27.04.09 when the warranty period already expired.  Besides, there is no expert report to show that the monitor of the PC was defective since after purchase. As the PC was repaired by RT Outsourcing Services Ltd. beyond the warranty period so the complainant had to pay Rs. 921/- to him as repairing charge.

Considering the facts of this case along with the documents and after hearing the submissions of both parties our considered view is that in this case the OP has no deficiency in service.  So the complainant cannot claim any compensation against him.  It is already established that the complainant himself damaged the PC due to which it was not repaired by the Acer India Pvt. Ltd. as per terms of the warranty period.  So the complainant had to bear the cost of repair.

Considering all these we find no merit in this case of the complainant.    So he  is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  In result the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/47 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

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