Orissa

Rayagada

CC/119/2019

Biplaba Keshari sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Proprietor Devi Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.   119/ 2019.                                      Date.     26  .    11   . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President-In-Charge

Smt.  Padmalaya    Mishra,.                                            Member

 

Sri Biplaba Keshari Sahu, S/O: Pralaya Kumar Sahu, Advocate by Profession, Indira  Nagar, 4^th. Lane, Po/  Dist: Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha).

Cell No.7008696451                                                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager-Cum-Propritor, Sridevi Computers, 30-15-125, Ist. Floor, Oppo crown Bakery, Dabagardens, Vizag- 530020.

2.The Manager, HP inc. “Hewlett Packard Global soft Pvt. Ltd. EC 2 Campus, HP Avenue, Survey  No. 39(Part),  Electronic city phase 11, Hosur road,  Bangalore- 560100 (India).                        .… Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri P.K.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.  1:- In person.

For the O.P. No. 2:- Set   exparte.

JUDGEMENT

 

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non refund of price towards   Laptop   a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant towards defective during warranty period for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

That the  complainant  had purchased HP LAPTOP 15-DAO327TU from the O.P. No. 1 by paying cash payment of Rs.33,000/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 2659  on   Dt.22.11.2018..   The above set  became  defunct  after two months  with a  following  defects i.e. started screen problem and other defects in the set.    So the complainant had sent  E- mails  to the O.Ps  for repair and replacement of the same.  But till date the O.Ps have not rectified the defects of the  above set. On  asking the O.Ps were taking  one or other plea. Hence this case before the forum  for redressal of  his grievance  and to  direct the O.Ps to     pay back the amount   of Rs. 33,000/-  towards purchase price of the set  and further direct the  OPs to pay  compensation  and also cost of  litigation to the complainant  & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper  for  the interest of justice.

On  being noticed the O.P No.1 appeared in person and filed Written version inter alia refuting the allegation  levelled against him. The O.P.No.1  submitted that this  forum  has lacks of territorial jurisdiction  as the  Registered office  of the O.P. No.2 is located at Bangalore.   The order for the  product  was placed and the complainant received the  product on Dt. 22.11.2018.  It is  well  settled fact  that  after  sales service  during the  tenure of the warranty  period are provided by the manufacturer of the  product in question.  The present  complaint    is not maintainable against the O.P. No.1  as a dealer of   O.P.No.2 was required   to timely  deliver  the original  product for which  the order was placed, which is admittedly performed  by the O.P.No.1.  The  warranty  card can  be availed by  the  complainant  in case of non working and any defect in the product  during  the warranty period from the  O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 ‘s  role is only to book the order and to timely  deliver the product in question. At  the time of purchase  order it was clear to the complainant  that after sale manufacturer only is liable to rectify the same through its authorized service centre. The O.P.No.1 prays the   forum  the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1.

On being noticed  the O.P No.2 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  5 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around  one year   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No.2 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.2.  was set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

          Heard from the complainant and from the O.P. No.1 (Dealer).   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

                The complainant has been heard at length & perused the records.

.               From the records it reveals that, the  complainant  had purchased HP LAPTOP 15-DAO327TU from the O.P. No. 1 by paying cash payment of Rs.33,000/- having  one year warranty  bearing  tax invoice No. 2659  on   Dt.22.11.2018 (copies of the  tax invoice is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately within   the warranty period  the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. The complainant complained the OPs  in shape of E-Mails   and  through  legal notice  for  remove the defects (copies of the  E- Mails  and  legal notice  are  in the file  which is marked as  Annexure-2).              

                It is admitted position of law that when   a  goods sold  by the  manufacturer has under gone  servicing   and even such  servicing  the same defects  persist  it   is deemed  to be a  manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant is entitled to thoroughly  check up  of the above  set   and   to  remove   the defects  of   the above set and to give  with fresh warrantee .

It is held and reported  in  CPJ 2005 (2) page No.781 the Hon’ble State  Commission , Chandigarh observed  the dealer is the person who in the market comes in direct contact with the consumer and he assures about the quality   of goods sold and in case  the consumer  had problem with the mobile handset, the dealer was under an obligation to refer the matter  to the manufacturer for necessary  relief, which  in the  instant case was done.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant had purchased the above set  from the O.Ps    on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. 33,000/- on Dt. 22.11.2018 (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant  after using  some months for rectification of defects  had intimated to the  O.Ps through  E-Mail  & in shape of  legal  notice (copies of the  E-Mails are in the file) but could not be  rectified  by  the  O.Ps till date.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new  set.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant which had developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the mobile set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.P  No.2  is  liable.

On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OPs.  Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.   

                                                O R D E R

In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  allowed  on exparte against the O.Ps

The O.P No.2 (Manufacturer)     is    ordered  to    refund  purchase  price of the Laptop  a sum of Rs. 33,000/- to the complainant.  The O.Ps   are  further ordered to pay Rs.5,000/-  towards compensation  for  mental agony, cost of litigation.

The O.P. No.1 is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early compliance of the above order. The O.Ps    are  ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order .

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me. Pronounced in the open forum on        26^th. day of    November, 2020.

 

MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT