DATE OF FILING                    :     13-02-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20-03-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     14-08-2012.

Mr. Raj Kishore Dubey,

son of late Ram Dayas Dubey

of 46, Bon Behari Bose Road,

P.O. P.S. & District Howrah,

PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Proprietor,

            The Satisfaction Infotech,

            490/93, G.T. Road ( South ),

            Howrah – 711 102.    

2.         The Managing Director,

            Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

            2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th floor, Tower – C,

            Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

            Gurgaon – 122009,

            Haryana, India.------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

                         President     :    Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,

                                                   M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

                         Member      :     Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

                         Member      :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act,

1986, as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for refund of the money  amounting to Rs. 22,959/-, the sale price of the computer purchased on 18-05-2010 from O.P. no. 1 along with other accessories. As the said computer developed defect and the same could not be removed by the company in spite of minor replacement, the complainant has filed this complaint for relief.

2.         The O.P. no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that he is not liable for suffer and loss of the complainant as he delivered the product to the consumers and cannot be held liable if any mechanical defect is inherent.

3.         The O.P. no. 2 in his written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint and contended interalia that the complainant used his computer for six months without any problem and as such it has no manufacturing defect ; that the technician examined the computer and repaired the PCB ; that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 2. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The enclosures reflect the bonafide purchase and the subsequent correspondences between the complainant and the O.P. no. 2. There is no denying the fact that the computer developed defect after six months of the use of the same. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the defect developed within few days from the use of the same but the complainant was hopeful that the minor defects could be regularized after constant use. Be that as it may this factum  of defect is also admitted by the O.P. no. 2 when they sent their technicians for checking of the same and their attempt at removing the PCB. Therefore, it is established that the computer in dispute has congenital mechanical defect. The purpose of purchasing the same is in fact frustrated for developing intermittent defect which is beyond repair. A consumer purchases a costly article for personal use and if the same does not render satisfactory service, the O.P. no. 2 is bound to either refund the amount or replace the same by a new one. The decision reported in 2010(2) CPR 333 (NC ) as cited on behalf of the O.P. no. 2 cannot be invoked in the instant case as in the cited case the air conditioning  machine developed defect after one year. Furthermore the fact of the case is not identical to that of the case in hand.

      In the result we are of view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 12 of 2012 ( HDF 12 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed without cost against O.P. no. 1.   

      The O.P.-2 be directed either to replace the computer by a new one or to refund the purchase money of Rs. 22,959/- within one month from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.

      The complainant is  entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.P. no. 2 towards harassment, inconvenience  and mental agony. 

      The complainant is further entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the o.p. no. 2.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.