Date of Filing: 31.08.2010
Date of Order: 08.08.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 8th day of August 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO: 2035 of 2010
Sri. P.Subodh,
S/o.late.K.N.Prahlad Rao,
Aged 49 years,
Flat No.201, No. 7&8, Parkside Apartments,
2nd cross, Malleswaram,
Bangalore 560 003. Complainant
V/S
1. Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.,
Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers,
UB City, 1 Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
India,
By its Managing Director,
2. Triangle Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Hare Krishna road,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore.
By Managing Director. Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri S.S. NAGARALE)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Complainant is a partner of the Firm by the name “3CIT”. He purchased the laptop in the name of the firm by the 2nd Opposite Party who is the authorized dealer of the 1st Opposite Party vide Serial No.66040928W, Invoice No.2414, dated 28th February 2007. In the month of June 2009, the Laptop was suddenly developed cracks around the screen. Same problem was occurred to other 2 Laptops which were purchased by the other two partners/friends who have also purchased the same model of Laptops from the OPs. There has been no fall of the laptop. All the three laptops developed similar problems around the same place and within the same time. Sudden cracking of the Laptop around the screen and also the other two Laptops cracking at the same places clearly shows that there is a manufacturing defect in all the three laptops. Complainant submitted that this has happened immediately after the warranty period is over.
3. The complainant approached 2nd OP for rectification of the defect, but the OP failed to rectify the defects. Due to the defect, the complainant was unable to use the Laptop. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint seeking for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and replacement of defective laptop from the OPs.
4. OP1 filed its version stating that the Laptop was purchased by the “3CIT’ Firm and not by the complainant. The Laptop was manufactured by Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd., Singapore, who is not a party in this dispute. OP1 is only a Service provider Company to the Toshiba Singapore Pte Ltd., and the Warranty for the period from 28.02.2007 to 27.02.2008. No firm or Corporate person can be granted any amount for mental agony as the same is a juristic person and not someone who can feel such pain and suffering. Hence OP1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Points for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
6. As per the Tax Invoice produced by the Complainant, Laptop was purchased by the Firm called 3C-IT Consulting. But, the Complaint has been filed by Mr. P. Subodh. Complainant submitted that he is the Partner in the Firm by name 3C-IT Consulting, but in order to show that he is a Partner of the said Firm, no document is produced. Complaint could have been filed in the name of the Firm, because Laptop has been purchased by the Firm. The Complainant has not produced any authorization letter of the Firm authorizing him to file the Complaint on behalf of the Firm. Under these circumstances, the present Complaint is technically defective. Complainant is not a proper person to file Complaint against OPs. On this technical ground itself, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Laptop had been purchased on 28.02.2007 and according to the Complainant himself the Laptop developed cracks near hinge of the screen and plastic portion has fallen off. In Para-4 of Complaint, Complainant submitted that this had happened immediately after the warranty period is over. When this is a case, how can the Complainant seek replacement of Laptop. As per the Complainant himself warranty period is already over. There was absolutely no complaint of functioning of Laptop during the warranty period. The cracks in the Laptop is seen by the Complainant after warranty period is over. So, under these circumstances, it would be unjust, unfair & unreasonable to order the Company to replace the Laptop. There is no legal obligation or commitment on the part of OP to replace the Laptop after warranty period is over. Therefore, on this ground also Complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Complaint is dismissed.
Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 8th day of August 2011
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
