Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/48

Sri Milanmoy Dewan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Saikat Saha Proprietor of M/S Sigma Systems, - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.Ghosh, Mrs. M. Bhattacharya, Mr. S.S. Datta, Mr.R.C. Deb

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 48   of  2014

     Sri Milanmoy Dewan. 
B 66, ONGC Colony,
South Badharghat, P.S. Amtali, 
District- West Tripura.        .........Complainant.

     ______VERSUS_____

Sri Saikat Saha,
Proprietor of M/S Sigma Systems,
Swasti Bazar, Room No. 59,
H.G.B. Road, Agartala,
District- West Tripura.         .......Opposite Party.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant       : Sri Prabal Ghosh,
                  Smt. Madhumita Bhattacharya,
                  Sri S. S. Datta and 
                  Sri R. C. Deb,
                          Advocates. 
                           
For the Opposite Party    : Sri Amritlal Saha, 
                  Sri Kajan Nandi and 
                  Sri Abheek Saha,
                  Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : -  04.03.15.

 

J U D G M E N T

 

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Milanmoy Dewan, B-66, ONGC Colony, South Badharghat, West Tripura against the O.P., namely Sri Saikat Saha, Proprietor of M/S Sigma Systems, Swasti Bazar, Room No. 59, H.G.B. Road, Agartala, West Tripura over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had purchased a reconditioned computer set from the O.P. who deals in computer, laptops and its accessories under the name and style 'Sigma  System' situated at Swasti Bazar, Agartala. After couple of months the computer started giving troubles. As per suggestion of the O.P., he placed the CPU of the computer with the O.P. on 19.11.12 to cure the defect. After due checking of the CPU it was detected that the RAM had gone out of order and hence it was required to be replaced. Accordingly, on 20.11.12 the defective RAM of the CPU was replaced by a new one and he paid Rs.2200/- being the price of the RAM and Rs.300/- as service charge to the O.P. After taking delivery of the computer it was found that the defect of the computer remained as before. He brought this fact to the notice of the O.P. who advised him to change the SMPS(Switch Mode Power Supply) of the computer. It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P. had unnecessarily replaced the old RAM though it was then working properly with malafide intention for wrongful gain. The complainant asked the O.P. to return  the amount of Rs.2200/- which was paid by him being the price of the RAM. The O.P. removed the RAM that was refixed by replacing the earlier one. On his requirement, the O.P., without paying back the price of the RAM, issued a due slip for Rs.2200/- in his favour. The complainant requested the O.P. on several occasions to return the amount of the due slip, but he turned a deaf ear to his requests. Ultimately on 19.12.13 he issued an advocate's notice to the O.P. asking him to make payment of the amount of the due slip but the O.P. did not respond to his notice. Hence, this complaint.
    
3.        The O.P. contested the case by filing written objection. It is denied by the O.P. that the RAM, which was replaced on 20.11.12, was not defective. The CPU was made operative after replacement of the defective RAM by a new one. When the complainant again placed the CPU with him for another problem , it was suggested to replace the SMPS. Then the complainant become furious and asked him to refund the price of the RAM that was replaced. All though it was an unusual practice which can not be accepted by any businessman, yet to maintain  good relationship he issued a due slip for Rs.2200/- in favour of the complainant on condition that he would purchase  spare parts up to the value of Rs.2200/- against the due slip slip from his shop. It is denied that there was any negligence and deficiency in service on his part.

4.        In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1: Due Slip dated 03.05.13,
    Exhibit 2: Copy of Chalan dated 25.11.09,
    Exhibit 3: Statement of Bank Accounts,
    Exhibit 4: Copy of bill dated 03.05.13 and 
    Exhibit 5: Advocate's notice dated 19.12.13. 

5.        On the other hand, the O.P. Saikat Saha, the Proprietor of M/S Sigma Systems, has examined himself as O.P.W.1 and proved and exhibited the following documents
    Exhibit A : Advocate's notice dated 19.12.13, 
    Exhibit B: Another Advocate's notice dated 02.08.13.

        FINDINGS:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
    (i) Whether the O.P. indulged in unfair trade practice during the course of repairing of the CPU of the computer placed by the complainant with him to remove the defect. If so, whether the O.P. is guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
        
7.        We have already heard the  arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties very carefully.

8.        The admitted position in this proceeding are:
The complainant had purchased a reconditioned computer set from the O.P. for a sum of Rs.30,500/- on 25.11.09;
The computer developed problem after the period of warranty, for which the complainant placed the CPU with the O.P. to remove the defect;
 As per suggestion of the O.P., the RAM of the CPU was replaced and for that matter a sum of Rs.2200/- was paid towards the price of the RAM and Rs.300/- as service charge;
 Despite replacement of the RAM, the computer was not working properly. Then the O.P. suggested for a  change of the SMPS (Switch Mode Power Supply) of the computer;
The O.P. took back the new RAM that was installed in the CPU in place of the old one and issued a due slip for Rs.2200/- to the complainant on condition that he will have to purchase spare parts of equal value from his shop; 

9.        Now, the moot point for consideration is that whether the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice as provided under section 2(1)(r) of the Act for wrongful gain. 

10.        There is no manner of dispute that to remove the defect of the computer the RAM of the CPU was replaced on 20.11.12. Then the complainant again placed the computer with the O.P. as it was giving troubles when it was suggested to replace the another component of the computer, namely SMPS (Switch mode power supply).

11.        The complainant as P.W. 1, during cross examination, has clearly stated that after replacement of the RAM there was no problem in the computer for 5/6 months. If the SMPS of the computer was initially defective, certainly it would not have operated for 5/6 months. The SMPS of the computer might have gone out of order after replacement of the RAM. In the affidavit in chief nothing has been stated by the complainant that after refixing of the old RAM by removing the new one the computer started functioning properly.

12.        The O.P. as O.P.W. 1 has stated that as he had good relationship with the complainant, on his request, he took back the  RAM that was installed in the CPU and issued a due slip for Rs.2200/- being the price of the RAM though it was not a usual practice.

13.        In this context, we do not think that the O.P. adopted any unfair trade practice in any manner as alleged. But at the same time it can not be lost sight of our notice that the O.P. agreed to refund the price of the RAM and for that matter a due slip for Rs.2200/- was issued. Since the O.P. assured to pay back the price of the RAM, it must be honoured. There can not be a logic behind it that the complainant is to purchase spare parts of equal value of the amount mentioned in the due slip from the shop of the O.P. It may so happen that the complainant may not require any of the spare parts sold by the O.P. at any point of time In that case, does it mean that he will not get back the amount of the due slip any more. In other words, it amounts to denial of the promise made to the complainant by the O.P.

14.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed partly. The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.2200/- (the amount mentioned in the due slip) to the complainant being the price of the RAM. This apart, he will pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. The O.P. is to pay the said amount within a month of the date of receipt of the copy of  judgment, failing which the amount payable would carry interest @9% P.A. till the payment is made. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for.
  
15.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.