Date of filing:-25/11/2016.
Date of Order:-17/11/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT),
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2016.
Chinmaya Mishra, aged about 31 (thirty one) years, Son of Bijaya Kumar Mishra, Resident of Sarada Nilaya, Near Mission Hospital, P.o./P.s/Dist. Bargarh. Contact No.7750019110 ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Tanisha’s World, B/18, B/19 Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Pin-751007 through it’s Proprietor.
Sysnet Global Technology Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Mr. Sadananda Sanbarsha, H.No.1395, Ward No.28 Infront of DIET, Dirt Road, Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Pin-768004.
H.P.Global Technology Pvt. Ltd., Kolkotta D & F IT Park (KDL)No.8 Major Arteral Road Suite E, in code-700156, Kolkotta,West Bengal.
..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri G. Meher, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Ex-parte.
and Opposite Party No.2(two)
For the Opposite Party No.3(three) :-Sri S.K.Tripathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.17/11/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
In pursuance to the provision envisaged U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case pertaining to the deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice caused to him by the Opposite Parties which is enumerated hereunder.
The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased one H.P. Laptop, 15 R 249 TV bearing Sl. No. CND 5075 V9R from the Opposite Party No.1(one) for a consideration amount of Rs.28,095/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand ninety five)only on Dt.09.05.2015. And while using the same in his house for some time and during that his allegation is that after some time it started giving trouble in it’s Battery for which he informed about the same to the Opposite Party No.3(three), the manufacturer of the same on Dt.16.02.2016 through E-mail, which was registered by the said Opposite Party No.3(three) vide ID No. # 4768373233, subsequently thereafter the Complainant has reminded the Opposite Parties in different occasion through E-mail, resulting to which the Opposite Party No.2(two) came to his house to verify and found that the Battery was not functioning properly but could not sort out the problem again on Dt.25.06.2016 & Dt.07.09.2016 came to his house but could not solve the said problem but assured him to get it solved by the Opposite Party No.3(three) either by changing the battery or by replacing the laptop but after that till yet non of the Opposite Parties took any step to rectify or replace the laptop for which the Complainant has been suffering both mentally and monetary loss for which has filed the case claiming the cause of action arose on Dt.06.05.2015 & on subsequent dates when the Opposite Party No.2(two) has visited his house but did nothing to solve his problem and hence has claimed before the Forum with a prayer to redress his dispute by giving a direction to the Opposite Parties either to replace the laptop or to refund him the cost of the same with a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only in lieu of his mental and monetary loss. And to substantiate his case has filed some documents as follows.
Cash invoice.
The complain confirmation request vide ID # 4768373223 Dt.18.2.2016 .
Copy of the Closure of request vide ID # 4768373223 Dt. 25.02.2016
Having gone through the Complaint, the documents and on hearing the counsel concerned found the same to be genuine case and hence admitted the same and served notice on the Opposite Parties. But surprisingly even after the notice being duly served on them only Opposite Party No.3(three) appeared through his Advocate and filed his version, so after waiting for a long time with a hope lest they would appear, Opposite Parties No.1(one) & No. 2(two) were set ex-parte on Dt.25.07.2017.
And so far as the version of the Opposite Party No.3(three) is concerned it has filed a voluminous written version completely denying the case of the Complainant, in it’s version it has contended that there was no problem with the Laptop but in the adapter and the Complainant was asked by the service engineer and other authorized personnel of the Opposite Party No.3(three) visiting the house of the Complainant to change the same on chargeable basis as it was not covered under the warranty period of one year and has time to time attended to him by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and have been advised accordingly but as he did not comply with their suggestion the complain was closed further more it has contended in it’s version as to burden of prove regarding the mechanical or any inherent defects in the set is on the Complainant which he has not done, so the case is not maintainable in addition to that has challenged the case of the Complainant with regard to the jurisdiction of the Forum to adjudicate the case and on several other grounds. And has declined to have deficient in rendering service or committing unfair trade practice.
Having gone through the complaint, version and the documents filed in the case some vital points for determination has cropped up before us to properly adjudicate the case, as follows .
Whether the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the case ?
Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving service to the Complainant and have committed unfair trade practice ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for by him ?
On perusal of the Complaint, the documents, the version and the documents filed by both the parties and the written notes of arguments along with the documents to that effect and on hearing the counsels of both the respective Parties. We took up the points for determination individually, And in course of our such scrutinisation.
While considering the No.1(one) points as to whether the Forum lacks jurisdiction in adjudicating the case in hand it came to our notice that admittedly all the Opposite Parties are from outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum but at the same time it has been observed that the Complainant is a permanent resident of Bargarh wherein is using the same and also it has been repeatedly contended in the version and in it’s written notes of arguments filed by the Opposite Party No.3(three) that it is a renowned company having it’s market throughout the country by net-marketing and also through it’s appointed dealer in different parts of the country, further more it has been admitted by the Opposite Party No.3(three) that on the complain of the Complainant the authorized Experts along with the Opposite Party No.2(two) has visited the house of the Complainant and has verified the said Laptop for necessary rectification of the problem in it, in this context it is an admitted provision of Law that the cause of action does not mean a single issue in question rather it constitutes with a bundle of facts taken together to constitute the same so in view of such provision though the Complainant has purchased the same product of the Opposite Parties through the Opposite Party No.1(one), but on the complain of the Complainant the Opposite Party No.2(two) has attended his complain and subsequently thereafter the experts of the Opposite Party No.3(three) has visited the house of the Complainant and have given their verification notes as such in view of the facts enumerated it’self in it’s version, it is proved that the part of cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Forum which empower so to adjudicate the dispute in question And the citation of the honorable Apex court of the country filed by the Opposite Party is in a different footing with that of the case in hand hence is not applicable here, in furtherance to the absence of the other answering Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.2(two) has strengthen the case of the Complainant, hence in our view the Forum has got ample jurisdiction in adjudicating the case and as such answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and whether have committed unfair trade practice, in this connection it has been observed in the materials available in the record that firstly the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.2(two) are though the dealer and the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.3(three) have avoided to appear before the Forum even if being sufficiently served with due notice on them which is quite within the knowledge of the answering Opposite Party No.3(three) to whom he could have compelled to appear and made them reply with their role to settle the matter, but it has not taken any such steps which proves against him, furthermore it is observed that the verification report as has mentioned in it’s written version that the experts of his company has visited the house of the Complainant and has shown defects with the adapter of the said Laptop but not with the battery also has categorically admitted the visit of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to the same problem of the Complainant, but it has been observed that he has claimed that the warranty period one year and that is already expired, is wrong as the laptop was purchased on Dt.09.05.2015 and after a few days it started giving trouble and complain was made on Dt.16.02.2016 which is very much within one year of the warranty period as has been admitted by him in his version and in the written arguments too, further with regard to the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the complain of the Complainant has not been associated with the expert opinion as such ought to be rejected, but in our opinion as per it’s own admission in it’s version that the experts of his company visited the complain of the complainant and found the defects in the adapter but not in the battery and also has advised him to change the same on payment basis as it was already beyond the period of warranty, so in this case when it is already examined by it’s own experts and has opined defects in some of it’s parts leaving aside the period of warranty, in such circumstances it can be safely deducted that the right of a consumer can not be thrown away because of some mere technicalities as it is already known to the Opposite Parties that there is some inherent defects in it so should not have repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the complain is not associated with expert opinion, and in the present circumstances it has become crystal clear without any ambiguity hence there is no necessity in going into the details of the citations further as we found those the citation filed by the Opposite Parties are in a different footing hence in our humble views those are not applicable in this case, hence in to consideration of all the material narrated above, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service and committing unfair trade practice against the Complainant hence our views expressed in affirmative to the case of the Complainant.
Thirdly while considering the point as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for by him. As we have already discussed the case in details in our foregoing paragraphs and has given our consensus opinion in favor of the Complainant it is obvious that he is very much entitled to the claimed compensation to which all the Opposite Parties are liable jointly and severally, as it is answered accordingly. Hence the order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the said Laptop with the battery system with a new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the cost of the Laptop Rs.28,095/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand ninety five)only with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation to the Complainant within thirty days from the receipt of the order and in default of the same the awarded amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same and accordingly the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties.
The Complainant is directed to return the defective Laptop to the Opposite Parties immediately after receiving the new Laptop with the battery system or above order would stand as it is.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum and is disposed off on Dt.17.11.2017.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r (W)
