w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. I.C.C. Computer System v/s Gagan Bharat & Another

    F.A. No. 283 of 2012
    Decided On, 25 March 2013
    At, Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: Rajan Kahol, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, T.N. Bharat, Advocate, R2, Ex parte.

Judgment Text
1. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member – This appeal is directed against order dated 02/07/2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in complaint No.242/2011, whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were jointly and severally held liable to replace the defective laptop with new laptop of same make and kind. The cost of litigation was quantified to the tune of Rs. 2,000. (Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint).

2. Brief facts of the case as they emerged from the complaint file are that complainant purchased a Laptop of H.P. Pavilion DV6-3004 TU SCNF 0163146 for a sum of Rs.35,000. Necessary invoice was obtained in this connection. In the month of May, 2011 Laptop/Notebook developed defect in its functioning which was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to visit the authorized service station run by the opposite party No.2. Laptop/Notebook was brought to the service station of opposite party No.2. Complainant was assured by the opposite party No. 2 that defect would be removed from laptop and same would be handed over to him after repairs. He received back the laptop from opposite party No. 2, but, on 20/05/2011, it again developed defect and handed over the same back to opposite party No.2 to do the needful.

3. Other averments are that the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party No.2 that there appears to be inherent defect in the laptop and requested for the replacement of the same since this defect had occurred repeatedly during the warranty period. On 27/05/2011, the complainant was informed by one Ashok Kumar that laptop has been repaired and he should collect the same and that there was no need to replace the same.

4. Further averments in the complaint are that the complainant had informed the opposite parties that in order to avoid future complications in the laptop; same was required to be replaced. Thereafter, on 06/06/2011, opposite party No.2 had informed the complainant that it was not able to replace the, same. Thereafter, opposite Party No.1 impressed upon the complainant to take back the laptop, failing which Rs. 500 would be charged from him as maintenance cost and it was also informed to him that in case he would not collect the laptop within specified period, the same would be sent to the warehouse of the company.

5. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed against the opposite parties for deficiency in service as well as for unfair trade practice and relief was sought to the extent that opposite parties be directed to deliver the new laptop of same kind and make and litigation cost alongwith the compensation has also been sought.

6. In the present case, opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte, as such, no evidence on their behalf had been submitted before the Learned Fora below. Brief resume of the evidence led by the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant in support of his case filed his own affidavit and placed reliance upon number of documents Annexure (A) to (I).

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the entire record of the case.

8. Mr. Rajan Kohal, counsel for the complainant argued that in the present case that complaint was not properly instituted as the complaint against opposite party No. 1 had been filed through its Manager and it was not by name and no proper service was effected upon the opposite parties. He had also argued that from the perusal of Annexures D, C, and D1, it is clearly evident that the complainant was informed by the opposite parties that the laptop is ready and request was made to the complainant to collect the same, but, he did not collect the laptop after repair, hence complainant cannot take the stand that laptop had not been repaired. Since after delivery of laptop to the opposite parties for repair, the complainant had not taken back the laptop, as such, his plea that the laptop is defective could not be taken into consideration as he had not checked the laptop after its repair, however, proper repair of the laptop was done, as such, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in the present case. Mr. Rajan Kohal also argued that the learned Fora below had wrongly fastened liability on opposite party No.1, as such, the judgment of the Ld. Fora below is not sustainable.

9. Mr.T.N. Bharat authorized representative of Sh. Gagan Bharat had supported the case of the learned Fora below.

10. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case file, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. Reasons being, that the laptop had developed defect during the period of warranty which fact is clearly evident from the perusal of Annexure B i.e. service call report which clearly depicts overheating in the laptop and complainant clearly deposed that after few months of the purchase of the laptop it had developed defect and this defect was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1, who had directed the complainant to visit the opposite party No.2, then it was given for repair to the opposite party No.2 around 13th May, 2011 and the same was given back on 17/05/2011 by the opposite party but again on 20/05/2011 the said laptop developed some defect as it begun to heat to a great extent. Then, it was again given for repair to the opposite parties. Since the laptop was defective and it was not repaired according to the satisfaction of the complainant, as such, request was made vide Annexure-E and H for replacing the same as it contained manufacturing defect, but, the complainant was asked vide Annexure G by the opposite parties to collect the laptop from the service centre before 14th July, failing which damage charges of Rs. 500 will be charged, which action is not justified in view of the request of complainant and is pressuring tactics.

11. In the present case since the averments made in the complaint have been duly supported by affidavit and this fact is very clear that the laptop was purchased from the opposite parties and same had become defective and was not functioning properly and it developed some inherent manufacturing defect as there was overheating in the laptop which is clearly evident form Annexure – 8 and even when it was repaired by the opposite parties and given to the complainant on 17/05/2011, then it again started heating and subsequently, it was again given for repair as such this is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and learned Fora below had rightly ordered for replacement of the defective laptop and as such, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Fora below in holding the opposite parties jointly and severally liable in the present case and in allowing the complaint since the opposite party No.1 is dealer and opposite party No.2 being its authorized service centre. Moreover, the version given

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
by the complainant, which is duly supported with an affidavit had not been rebutted by the opposite parties since no reply to the complaint was filed. 12. In the present case, the complaint was properly instituted against the opposite party through its Manager and there is proper service upon the opposite parties as per the record of the case and as such there is no force in such pleas of the counsel for the appellant. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the present appeal, as such, it is dismissed and consequently, the order of the Ld. Fora below passed in Consumer Complaint No.242/2011 is upheld. No order as to costs. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.