Date of Filing: 26.02.2015 Date of Final Order: 16.11.2015
The gist of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant, Suman Debnath purchased a Toshiba Laptop for his studies from the O.P. No.1, United Zone, Boxirhat by depositing Rs.25,500/- on 18/01/2014 with this assurance that they will render proper service towards the Complainant but at the time of purchasing the said laptop, the O.P. No.1 did not issued any warranty card in favour of the Complainant. The details of the said laptop is mentioned here below :
Particulars of Toshiba Laptop – C850-P511 (DC/2/500/15.6)
S/N-4CO5269Q
Satelite C850-P5011
Part No. PSC 74 G-00J001.
The main contusion of the Complainant is that after four months from the date of purchasing, the said laptop was not working properly and there was no power, display problem and key-board problem. Thereafter the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 for changing the said laptop but the O.P. No.1 advised to him that he was entitled to get onsite warranty at least one year and accordingly the Complainant contact with online Toshiba onsite warranty centre on several occasions. After that one Mr. Dipankar Basu had came to the Complainant’s house for repairing the said laptop for three times. But after such repair, the same problem again cropped up along with some other related problems within warranty period. The Complainant further contact with online Toshiba onsite warranty centre along with the said defects but no one has come to the house of the Complainant for repairing the same. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the O.P. No.2, Subham Computers, Siliguri on several times for repairing the said laptop but after repairing this, the Complainant again facing the said problems in his laptop. Thereafter in the long run, the Complainant made several contact to the O.P. No.1 & 2 for replace the defective laptop or solve the said defects but they did not take any positive steps.
Finding no other alternative, the Complainant submitted a written complaint before the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar on 23/12/2014 for the purpose of redressing the above disputes. After that the said office sent a letter to the O.P. No.1 & 2 for resolving the disputes but all efforts were in vain.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffering from mental pain, agony, pecuniary loss, unnecessary harassment. The Complainant also facing hindrance as well as suffer irreparable loss and as such the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for such deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Hence, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.25,500/- as value of the said laptop or replace the said defective laptop with new one, (ii) Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, (iii) Rs.30,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and (iv) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. Nos.1, United Zone, Boxirhat has contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P. No.1 is that warranty was issued in respect of any machine by the principal manufacturing company and in the present case, the said product which is specifically mentioned in the complaint is under the warranty issued by Toshiba Company and the Complainant also communicated the aforesaid company through their website and availed the warranty service on many occasions. As such the allegation of the written complaint that the O.P. No.1 did not issued any warranty card did not stand.
The O.P. No.1 further contended in their W/V that the O.P. No.1 neither manufacturer nor service provider, so the question of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 does not stand. The O.P. No.1 is mere seller of goods herein a laptop manufacturing by Toshiba Company. At the time of selling the said laptop, the O.P. No.1 issued Tax Invoice according to norms and registered his sell as such the concerned principal manufacturing company responded. Rather this O.P. No.1 no point of time issued any warranty on the product manufactured by any company on his personal capacity as such the product manufactured by Toshiba Company is not liable to replace the said laptop by this O.P. No.1.
Ultimately, this answering O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case without any costs.
In this case, despite receiving the notice the O.P. No.2, Subham Computers, Siliguri did not come forward before this Forum to contest the case and accordingly this case was heard on Ex-parte against them.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record. Perused the W/Ar. of both parties also heard the argument by the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant has purchased a Toshiba Laptop from the O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.25,500/- on 18/01/2014 and the O.P. No.2 is service centre of the said Toshiba Laptop.
So, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps has been established and the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
One of the O.Ps i.e. the O.P. No.1, United Zone has show room at Deshbandhu Para, Boxirhat, Cooch Behar.
Total valuation of the present case is Rs.95,500/- i.e. far less than maximum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up for convenience of discussion.
The Complainant, Suman Debnath in his complaint and evidence stated that he has purchased a Toshiba Laptop for his studies from the O.P. No.1, United Zone, Boxirhat by depositing Rs.25,500/- on 18/01/2014 with this assurance that they will render proper service towards the Complainant but at the time of purchasing the said laptop, the O.P. No.1 did not issued any warranty card in favour of the Complainant.
“Annexure-A” i.e. Tax Invoice dated 18/01/2014 shows that the Complainant has purchased a Toshiba Laptop from the O.P. No.1 at a price of Rs.25,500/-.
“Annexure-B1 & B2” i.e. Warranty shows that one year warranty was given to the Complainant for the said Toshiba Laptop.
In his evidence the Complainant further stated that after four months from the date of purchasing, the said laptop was not working properly and there was no power, display problem and key-board problem. Thereafter the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 for changing the said laptop but the O.P. No.1 advised to him that he was entitled to get onsite warranty at least one year and accordingly the Complainant contact with online Toshiba onsite warranty centre on several occasions. After that one Mr. Dipankar Basu had came to the Complainant’s house for repairing the said laptop for three times. But after such repair, the same problem again cropped up along with some other related problems within warranty period. The Complainant further contact with online Toshiba onsite warranty centre along with the said defects but no one has come to the house of the Complainant for repairing the same. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the O.P. No.2, Subham Computers, Siliguri on several times for repairing the said laptop but after repairing this, the Complainant again facing the said problems in his laptop.
“Annexure-B” i.e. Work Order No. SC/TOS/W0006/14-15, SC/TOS/W0017/14-15 and SC/TOS/W0025/14-15 issued by the O.P. No.2 show that the said laptop was brought to the O.P. No.2 for No Power, Display Problem and Key Board Problem respectively.
“Annexure-C, C1 & C2” i.e. Service Call Reports (without any date) show that the said Laptop was taken for repair to the O.P. No.2. “Annexure-C1” shows that Mother Board, DVD Writer replaced. “Annexure-C” shows no such note regarding repair. “Annexure-C2” shows that no problem was found by Engineer but the Complainant has received the Laptop with somewhat dissatisfaction.
So, in view of our discussion regarding Job Cards and Service Call Reports, we find that since purchase of the Laptop on 18/01/2014 it was brought to the O.P. No.1 & 2 time and again for repair but no satisfactory result was obtained by the Complainant.
On the other hand, the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 submitted that to prove manufacturing defect report of expert is a must.
In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in 2005(2) CPR 438 Kerala where in a case of a defective Computer Hon’ble State Commission pleased to hold that as no expert was examined to prove that replaced monitor was defective and in absence of manufacturing defect Appellant could not be held liable for any relief claimed in complaint.
But in ruling reported in 2014 CJ 402 (NC) in a case of defective vehicle our Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that fact that vehicle had been taken for repairs to workshop for time and again proves manufacturing defect in it.
During hearing of argument Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 has given much trace upon Section 101 – 103 of the Evidence Act and submitted that entire onus is upon the Complainant to prove that the said Laptop was defective.
Certainly, like all other Civil Cases, in Consumer Cases also onus is upon the Complainant to prove his case but in the present case we have already come to the conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the said Laptop.
At the time of hearing of argument the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P. No.1 also submitted that the present case is bad for defect of parties as the manufacturer of the Laptop in question has not been made party to the case by the Complainant.
In view of ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 258 (SC) claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.
Considering an overall matter into consideration and materials on record we find that Laptop in question was brought to the O.P. No.2, Service Centre time and again but they have failed to give satisfactory service to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
Regarding the O.P. No.1, United Zone, we find the said seller took proper care to obtain onsite warranty by the Complainant and properly advised him to go to the O.P. No.2 for proper service. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
Accordingly, both points are decided in favour of the Complainant and the case succeeds in part. The O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs.25,500/- as costs of the Laptop in question and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and deficiency in service.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present case No. CC/15/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any costs against the O.P. No.1, United Zone, Boxirhat, Dist. Cooch Behar and allowed on Ex-parte but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P. No.2, Subham Computers, Siliguri.
The O.P. No.2, Subham Computers, Siliguri is hereby directed to pay Rs.25,500/- as costs of the Laptop in question and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant, Suman Debnath for mental pain, agony, harassment and deficiency in service.
The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant by the O.P. No.2 within 45 days failure of which the said O.P. No.2 shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
