Orissa

Cuttak

CC/88/2020

Satyaban Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt Limited - Opp.Party(s)

self

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                             C.C.No.88/2020

            SriSatyaban Sahoo,

            S/O:Late Narayan Sahoo,

            C/o: Rajani KuymarSahoo(Bhramaranana),

            AD Nagar,ADMarkat,

            At:Arunodaya Market,Cuttack-753012.      ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.          ArushSogani,Director,

                           SysnetGlobal  TechnologiesPvt. Ltd.,

                           HPI Authorised Service Partner,

                           W-42,Akhla Phase II,New Delhi-110020..

 

2.          Atish Kumar Sahoo,

ID Manager,

                           SysnetGlobal  TechnologiesPvt. Ltd.,

                           Plot No.507,1^stFloor,Opposite of SBI,

                            SaheedNagar,Bhubaneswar-751016(Odisha).

 

3.           Branch Manager,

Reliance Digital Limited,

TheHP Computer Selling Laptop,

Plot No.967,Khata No.758/190,

Unit No.24, College Square,

                  Cuttack                                                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.11.2020

Date of Order:  14.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.ps no.1 & 2:           None.

For the O.P no.3         :          Mr. P.Pattnaik,Advocate.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                                               

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Laptop bearing Model no.HP Notebook – 15s-dr0002tu with serial no.CND9222PZX for a sum of Rs.53,999/- from O.P no.3 on 4.7.2019.  The said Laptop showed various problems from the date of its purchase for which number of complaints were made by the complainant to the O.Ps.  The authorised technician of the O.Pshad visited and inspected the said Laptop but had broken the hingecap and without repairing the same he had gone away.  Inspite of repeated persuasions for the defects in the said Laptop, thosecouldnot be rectified and ultimately an amount of Rs,.12,219/- was charged through quotation from the complainant towards repair of those.  The cost of the hinge cap as broken by the authorised technician was of Rs.4353.66p.  The complainant had lodged complaints with the O.Ps on 3.9.20,25.9.20,3.10.20,20.10.20,27.10.20 and 26.10.20.  The O.P company without rectifying the defects went on issuing quotations as sent earlier to the complainant to tune of Rs.12,219/- on 19.9.20 which wasdeposited by the son of the complainant on 24.9.20.  The subsequent quotations as issued by the O.P company on 15.10.20 was for Rs.13,145/-, on 17.10.20 for Rs.18,282.43p and on 27.10.20 for Rs.18,918.10p.  Though the Laptop was within the warranty periodand had developed defects, the O.P company and its members went on asking for money from the complainant without rectifying the same.  The complainant has therefore filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps for removing the said defects in his Laptop or by giving a new Laptop to him of the same price and to refund the price of Rs.12,219/- as taken from him towards the repairing cost.  He has also prayed forcompensation amount of Rs.35,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment and further he has prayed for an amount of Rs.15,000/- from them towards his litigation expenses.  The complainant has further prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          He has filed copies of several documents relating to the purchase of the said Laptop and about the various quotations sent to him towards the repairing cost of the Laptop as purchased by him.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested this case O.Ps no.1 & 2 have been set exparte vide order dt.18.1.21.But O.P no.3 has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein it is urged by O.P no.3 that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.The case of the complainant is also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  According to O.P no.3, while the complainant had purchased the Laptop he was provided aLaserJet printer and a carry case free of cost.  He being a product-seller,has mentioned through his written version that he does not assure the purchaser about the quality or efficacy of the goods sold and it is the manufacturer only whohas the responsibility of any shortcomings or fault thereunder.  The O.P no.3 is also not authorised tocarry out any warranted repair but it is done by the franchise appointed by the H.P company.  He has harped upon the doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’ and has tried to shift the responsibility towards the product manufacturer through his written version.  He has submitted further in his written version that he was never approached by the complainant regarding any defect as noticed and has also blamed the complainant that he had tried to derogate and tarnishthe reputation of O.P no.3 by making false and non-substantial facts, the complainant had rather tried to suppress the fact in order to hoodwink and that he had not handed the Laptop properly.Under such circumstances it is prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, here in this case the complainant had purchased a Laptop from O.P no.3 by paying a sum of Rs.53,999/- on 4.7.2019.  The warranty period for the said Laptop was upto 8.10.2022.  The said Laptop developed various problems and the matter was duly intimated to the O.Ps by the complainant.  The contesting O.P no.3 has tried toescape from the responsibility by taking the plea of the doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’.  He has urged to be a product-seller only who cannot assure about the quality or efficacy of the product to the purchaser.  The doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’ is the garb taken by the cunning sellers who try to cheat thoroughly the innocent purchasers and also escape through the said doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’.  After the enactment of the C.P.Act,2019, such doctrine has no role to play and as per the provisions of the said Act, the duties and responsibilities of a product-seller is as good as that of a product-manufacturer and thus, the plea of O.P no.3 as taken here in this case do not suffice.  He cannot escape simply by saying that his duties are only to sell the product and he has no further responsibility as regards to the quality, efficacy and durability of the product.  O.P no.3 here in this case is quite silent about the defects as noticed in the purchased Laptop of the complainant.  Such plea as taken by O.P no.3 appears to be quite vague.  The O.Ps by sending various quotations in order to rectify the faulty laptop as sold by them to the complainant within the warranty period, appears to be quite unreasonable and unbecoming on their part.  It is because when there is warranty still persisting over the purchased laptop of the complainant, charging for its defects should not have been done.  The plea of O.P no.3 that the laptop was mishandled is also not amply proved through cogent evidence here in this case.  Thus, this Commission comes to a conclusion here that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of each of the O.Ps by not promptly responding to the defects when pointed out by the complainant towards his purchased laptop which was within the warranty period.  It can also be said here that there was practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps of this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.   

 

                                    ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P no.3 and exparte against O.Ps no.1 & 2.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  They are directed to remove the defects of the purchased laptop of the complainant with immediate effect free of cost or in the alternative to replace the defective laptop with a new one of same brand and same price within a month hence.  The O.Ps are further directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,219/- as taken by themtowards the repair of thedefective laptop of the complainant so also to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 14^th day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                           

                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                          President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member