West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/12

Priyaranjan Sadhu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subhendu Patra, Prop: Computer Servicing Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

Kajal Chatterjee

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

The complainant filed this case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainants case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one computer from the O.P with a sum of Rs. 24000/ on 25.04.2011 vide cash memo No. Bill/Challan No. CSC/023/11-12 for his personal use. After two months from the date of purchasing some defects have been noticed in the said computer. The complainant informed the matter to the O.P and the O.P assured to remove the defect within 30^th November 2013. Accordingly the complainant handed over the said computer to the O.P on January 2013 and the defects were removed at that time. But the same defects were again noticed on December 2013 and the complainant again informed the O.P. Thereafter the defects were found time to time on diverse occasion and every time the matter was informed to the O.P. The complainant requested the O.P to change the said computer on 09.12.2013 as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. But there was no reply from the O.P. The complainant lost more than 100 working hours and suffered with mental agony. Hence this case.

The complainant prayed for reliefs as per the complainant.

The O.P contested the case by filing written version and denied all averments made against him. The O.P stated that the complainant used the computer for commercial purpose and the instant complaint is not maintainable under C.P Act. The O.P also stated that the complainant purchased a computer assembling of different parts of different companies and all companies are necessary party in the instant case but they have not been impleaded. So, the case is defect of parties. The O.P again stated that he has not issued any warranty as he is not manufacturer and the complainant is a professional photographer and used pirated software for which the computer may be damaged. The O.P again stated that as per the rule of the IT system the authorized service center of the company can give service only and the O.P is not an authorized service center but the complainant without going to the authorized service center filed this case illegally. The O.P mentioned that the product has already lapsed its warranty and the complainant

with his illegal intension filed this frivolous case. The O.P. also stated that complainant used the computer successfully for over 3yeasrs and the O.P has no deficiency in service on his part and prayed for dismissal of the case.

The complainant filed evidence in chief on affidavit and cross examined himself in the form of questionnaire and reply.  The O.P also filed evidence in chief. The complainant has not cross examined the O.P. Both parties filed written argument and oral argument has been conducted.

On verification of petition of complaint, evidence in chief and documents on record and after hearing the arguments of both parties following points are necessary to discuss to determine the case.

POINTS

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1: Evidently the complainant had purchased a computer set from the O.P vide bill/challan No. CSC/023/11 _12 dated 25.04.2011.  So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P Act. 1986.

Point No.2: The computer shop of the O.P has situated at Bolpur, Birbhum within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The valuation of the case is far below then the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs. So, this Forum has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. 

Point No. 3 and 4: Both points are interrelated to each other and taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

At the time of argument the complainant stated that after two months of purchasing some defects has been noticed in the computer and accordingly he has informed the O.P and the said computer has been handed over to the O.P to remove the defect on January 2013. But thereafter that defect has been noticed several times and every time it was informed to the O.P. The complainant again told that as per terms and condition of warranty a request letter to replace the defective computer has been sent to the O.P on 09.12.2013 but the O.P did not pay any heed. The complainant filed xerox copy of bill issued by the O.P towards the purchasing of computer and a xerox copy of letter issued to the O.P dated 09.12.2013.

In reply the O.P stated that the complainant purchased the computer on 25.04.2011 and the same was under warranty for one year which was lapsed on 25.04.2012. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit beyond the warranty period.

We have verified the documents. It is clear from the bill that the computer has been purchased on 25.04.2011 but the complainant has not filed any warranty card or any such documents which speaks the warranty period of the computer. At that bill it is mentioned only that all products cover limited and​ their principals / manufacture warranty but that does not shows for how long the products were under warranty or what is the terms and conditions of warranty. So, we are unable to decide that on 09.12.2013 i.e. after 2 years and 8months of purchasing,  when the complainant sent the letter to the O.P requesting to change the defective computer, whether the said computer is under warranty period or not.

The O.P again stated that the computer has been purchased on 25.04.2011 and the case has been filed on 28.01.2014, in between that period the complainant never visited the O.P with his computer nor he sent any letter to the O.P. In this regard we have verified the xerox copy of the letter filed by the complainant which was issued to the O.P. There is no endorsement or signature of the O.P on that letter which prove that the letter was received by him. It was mentioned in the upper portion of that document that the letter was sent by “registered post with A/D due to refusal to accept the letter by hand”. But the complainant has not filed the A/D of that registered post to prove that he has sent the letter to the O.P or the O.P has received the same. Moreover in that letter the complainant has requested the O.P to returned or replace a particular parts of the computer as request for return / replacement of hard disk 500GB Seagate Sata HDD, Sl. No. Z2A050WX and not for the whole computer one. So, the documents filed by the complainant does not support the averment made against the O.P.

Besides the complainant stated that several times he had informed the O.P about the defect of the computer and handed over the same to the O.P on January 2013 to remove the defect. But there was no such documentary evidence in support of his statement. So, it is not clear whether the complainant informed about the defect of the computer within the warranty period or not.

Moreover. The complainant stated that the computer in question is defective. But he has not filed any expert report in support of his allegation and at the time of cross examination he declared himself as not a computer expert. So, without any expert report we cannot concluded that the computer is suffered with defect.

In this regard Ld. Lawyer for the O.P cited some ruling of the Honble National Commission reported in 2009(1)CPC686, 2010(2)CPC720 and 1(2013)CPJ47(NC). In above mentioned every cases Hon’ble National Commission decided that expert report is necessary to prove the defect of the products. Reliance has been placed upon those decision made by the Honble National Commission in above mentioned cases.

It is clear from the above discussion that the complainant is unable to prove the allegations made against the O.P with strong cogent evidence or documents. There is insufficient of relevant documents in support of the case. Hence, the case fails. Points 3 and 4 are thus disposed of.

Proper fees have been paid.

            Hence, 

O R D E R E D                                         

that C.F Case No. 12/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without cost.

A copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately.