Judgment : Dt.18.4.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, by Linquest Telecom Ltd., represented by Mr. Madan Gopal Jaiswal, alleging deficiency in providing service by the Chairman, CEO, M/s Apple India Pvt. Ltd. and the Manager Currents Technology Retail (I) Ltd.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that he purchased an Apple Macbook Pro (Retina I 5-inch, Mid 2014) Laptop on 02.05.2015, Model (MBP) 15.4 (RETINA/ 2.5 GHZ/ 16 GB/’ 5 TZ GB having serial No.CO2PH6JHG3QD) from the OP No.2 at a consideration of Rs.2,33,053/- only. The Complainant has stated that from very inception, the said laptop started malfunctioning such as abruptly hanged and while the work on progress it forced to shut down or restart. The Complainant lodged complaint with the OP No.2 on 22.7.2015 and was advised to reinstall OS. Since reinstallation of OS causes deletion of stored data, the Complainant did not accept the advice. On the same date i.e. on 22.07.2015, the Complainant had a prolonged telephonic conversation with the OP No.2 who suggested him to take the said laptop to the Kolkata Service Centre of Apple. The Complainant did the same but to no effect as the problem was persisting. The Complainant requested the OP Nos.1 & 2 to replace the said defective laptop by new on, but, the said OPs did not pay heed to that request. The Complainant has, further, stated that since being a reputed person he in need of branded laptops for his business purpose and, therefore, had to purchase another apple laptop for his official works. It is the specific allegation of the Complainant that the OPs could not make the said laptop defect free by repairing. Hence, he has prayed for direction upon the OPs to replace the laptop in question by new one of same description, alternatively, to refund the entire amount of consideration of the said laptop along with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and to pay the cost of litigation.
Notices were served upon the OPs.
OP No.2 has appeared and contested the case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that the instant complaint is not maintainable and, further, the answering OP ( i.e. the OP No.2) has been impleaded as a party unnecessarily since the OP No.2 is mere a seller who sells and attend the products within warranty period as per instruction of the OP No.1 – manufacturer. Accordingly, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with costs.
The Complainant and the OP No.2 have adduced evidence on affidavit respectively which are followed by questionnaire by the OP No.2 and reply by the Complainant. The Complainant has also filed Written Notes on Argument on the date fixed for argument.
Now, the points to be determined which are –
Whether case is maintainable before this Forum?
Whether the OPs have deficiency in providing service.
Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
Point No.1
Evidently, the Complainant is a Limited Company. To determine this point we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2016(1) CPR 258 [Alfa Therm Ltd. – vs – Unitech Ltd.] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that Company cannot maintain consumer complaint.
Moreover, in paragraph No.2 of the petition of complaint the Complainant himself averred that he, for his business purpose, always requires a branded laptop and had to purchase another Apple laptop (since) the Complainant sent the defective laptop for repair. From this averment, it is clear that the Complainant – Limited Company purchased the said laptop for commercial purpose.
Under such state of affairs, we are of opinion that the instant complaint is not maintainable under the C.P.Act.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Since the Point No.1 is answered negative it is unnecessary to determine the rest points.
In the result, the petition of complaint does not succeed.
However, considering the circumstances, we are not inclined to allow costs.
Hence ordered
That the Consumer complaint being No.401 of 2016 is dismissed on contest being not maintainable but without any order as to costs.
