State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mamta Jain, Legal Heir / Widow Of Ashok ... vs Sahil Kandhari on 21 April, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1218 of 2009
Date of institution : 26.08.2009
Date of decision : 21.04.2010
Mamta Jain, Legal Heir / Widow of Ashok Jain, Sole Proprietor of Nahar
Enterprises, 333, Khati Market J&K Bank Street, Ferozepur now resident of
Street No.2, Nai Basti, Ferozepur.
...Appellant
Versus
1. Sahil Kandhari, aged 20 years son of Pawan Kandhari son of Roshan
Lal, resident of Guruhar Sahai, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur.
2. Hawlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Tower-D 6th Floor, Global
Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurgaon through its authorized person.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 19.6.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Vivek Sehgal, Advocate with
Sh.Sahil Kandhari respondent (in
person).
For respondent No.2 : None.
MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by Mamta Jain, the widow & legal heir of late Ashok Jain, sole proprietor and authorised dealer of M/s Nahar Enterprises (hereinafter to be referred as appellant firm) against the impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the learned District Forum allowed the complaint of respondent no.1 and directed the dealer i.e. the appellant firm and the manufacturer i.e. respondent No.2 to jointly and severally replace the laptop in question and pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to complainant / respondent no.1.
First Appeal No.1218 of 2009 2
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent no.1 purchased a laptop of HP company from the appellant firm for a sum of Rs.37,000/- vide bill dated 17.11.2007. The said laptop had a warranty of one year. It was pleaded that as the laptop developed a snag in the month of March, 2008 i.e. during the warranty period, the complainant / respondent No.1 approached the appellant firm which further directed respondent No.1 to get the problem rectified from any service station of respondent No.2. It was further pleaded that inspite of the replacement of the mother board by the service centre at Ludhiana, the defect in the laptop persisted. It was further pleaded that the service centres at Ludhiana and Jalandhar refused to rectify the laptop without taking charges despite the fact that the laptop was still under the warranty period. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant firm and respondent No.2 the manufacturer, respondent no.1 filed a complaint in the District Forum seeking replacement of the laptop or refund of the price of the laptop along with interest, cost and compensation.
3. The appellant firm filed written reply taking the legal objections that the complaint was not maintainable; that respondent no.1 was not a consumer; that the District Forum at Ferozepur had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and that the complaint was bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of parties.
4. On merits, it was pleaded that respondent no.1 never approached the appellant firm regarding any complaint in the laptop and had infact directly approached the service centres of respondent no.2 at Ludhiana and Jalandhar. It was further pleaded that the warranty was given by respondent No.2 and that the said service centres of respondent No.2 had no concern with the appellant firm. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the appellant firm prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. Inspite of notice, respondent no.2 failed to appear and were proceeded against ex-parte.
First Appeal No.1218 of 2009 3
6. Respondent no.1 tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13. The appellant firm and respondent No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite having availed several opportunities to do so.
7. The learned District Forum after considering the pleadings and documents brought on record accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 19.6.2009 in the manner stated above.
8. Hence the appeal.
9. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 19.6.2009 be set aside.
10. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 was that there is no merit in the present appeal and same be dismissed.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. At one stage, this Commission decided to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and the case was put up in the Lok Adalat but since the parties failed to reach a compromise, the case was taken out of Lok Adalat.
13. We proceeded to hear the case on merits.
14. Admittedly respondent No.1 purchased a laptop of HP company from the appellant firm vide bill dated 17.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. It is also not disputed between the parties that the said laptop developed a problem within the warranty period which could not be rectified inspite of the replacement of the motherboard by the service centre of respondent No.2.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the husband of the appellant who was the sole proprietor of M/s Nahar Enterprises had died during the pendency of the complaint. As such the order passed by the District Forum had become null and void. It was further submitted that the appellant being the legal heir of her husband was not liable to pay any amount respondent no.1 as the warranty of the said laptop was issued by the manufacturer of the said laptop i.e. respondent no.2 and hence respondent No.2 alone was liable to pay compensation to respondent no.1.
First Appeal No.1218 of 2009 4
16. The appellant being the legal heir of Ashok Jain who was the proprietor of the firm has now stepped into the shoes of her husband. Since she is enjoying the profits of the firm, she is liable for the losses as well. Therefore the argument raised by the appellant with regard to the same is devoid of merits.
17. The laptop having been sold by the appellant and the warranty of the same having been provided by respondent No.2, the liability of both the dealer i.e. the appellant and the manufacturer i.e. respondent No.2 has to be joint and several.
18. Accordingly, we affirm the order dated 19.6.2009 of the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal and order that the dealer and manufacturer shall jointly and severally comply with the order of the District Forum within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
19. However, if the said order is initially complied by the appellant, she would be at liberty to seek reimbursement of the awarded amount and replacement of the laptop from the manufacturer i.e. respondent No.2.
20. The appellant firm has deposited a sum of Rs.3500/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 26.8.2009. This amount along with interest, if any, be released to respondent No.1 by way of crossed cheque / demand draft under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
21. The order in the case was reserved on 9.4.2010. Now the parties be communicated the same.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER April 21, 2009.
Davinder