State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Bhalla Business And Education ... vs Anjali Banerjee on 12 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 / 2008
M/s Bhalla Business and Education Centre
509, Model Colony, Avas Vikas, Haridwar
Through its Proprietor Shri Rajeev Bhalla
S/o Shri Prem Prakash Bhalla
........Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Anjali Banerjee
W/o Shri B.K. Banerjee
R/o C/o Shri Ved Prakash
E-88, Mohalla Holi, Kankhal, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Mr. N.K. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 12/10/2012
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar allowing the consumer complaint No. 101/2008 and directing the opposite party to replace the computer with a new one of the same make, model and cost with a new warranty / guarantee within a month from the date of the order and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated by the complainant Smt. Anjali Banerjee in her consumer complaint, are that she had purchased a computer along with a printer and a U.P.S. on 02.02.2006 from M/s Bhalla Business & Education Centre, Haridwar - opposite party for Rs. 31,500/-, but the opposite party had not mentioned anything in regard to the computer's warranty / guarantee in the invoice dated 08.02.2006 issued by it. The 2 complainant has alleged that though she was interested to buy a cheaper model costing Rs. 17,000/- , as advertised by the opposite party in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran's issue dated 03.02.2006 having the same specifications, the opposite party had advised her to buy a high-grade computer which will run for ten years and also assured to provide free service for three years for any defect. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the said computer for Rs. 31,500/-. The complainant has alleged that the said computer started giving problem after 3-4 months from the date of its purchase. On making a complaint, the opposite party sent its technician and the problem was removed by him. Again, after 3-4 months, some problem occurred in the computer, which, after several requests / complaints, was removed by the opposite party's technician. Again after 3-4 months, some problem surfaced up in the computer and it was set right by the technician by changing some parts. Here, the complainant has also alleged that the opposite party did not provide timely service and it was always delayed. For the aforesaid last service, the technician was sent in the month of April, 2007. After the service / repair, the computer ran satisfactorily for about 6 months, but once again it became out of order in October, 2007. This time, the Manager of the opposite party demanded Rs. 200/- for examining the computer and Rs. 1,300/- for changing its RAM. However, as a usual practice, the Manager of the opposite party sent the technician after a long time in December, 2007, who examined it and demanded Rs. 1,300/- for the repair. When the complainant's husband asked the technician for money receipt, he did not give the receipt and went away. Since the computer was becoming out of order again and again, the complainant wanted to know the exact cause of the problem in the computer and an estimate for its repair with some surety for future. The complainant's husband also met Sh. Bhalla, the proprietor of the firm. Ultimately, when he delivered the C.P.U. on 05.03.2008 to the opposite party and asked for the estimate, some Sh. Rovish gave an estimate of Rs. 5,150/- on a simple piece of paper. The complainant insisted that the repair should be done free of cost as the frequent problems in the computer had surfaced up during the period of warranty, but the opposite party did not agree to it. The complainant has alleged that since then the 3 computer is lying idle and the opposite party has not taken any action inspite of complainant's several requests. The complainant also reported the matter to the police station, but to no avail. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 03.04.2008. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party in the above manner. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Shri Rajiv Bhalla, proprietor of the appellant firm and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent - complainant inspite of the fact that every effort for the service of the notice upon her has been made. The first notice sent by registered post was returned back by the Postal Department with the remarks that the husband of the complainant had refused to receive it. Once again, the notice was sent by registered post, which was again received back unserved. This Commission, therefore, vide its order dated 04.08.2010, deemed the service of the notice on respondent as sufficient.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complaint was in regard to C.P.U. of the computer and not in regard to other parts, such as monitor, printer, U.P.S. etc. But the District Forum, without a proper appreciation of the facts of the case, has erred by directing the appellant to replace the entire computer. The District Forum has also failed to appreciate the fact that the defect had developed after the expiry of the warranty period of one year and that too because of the misuse / mishandling of the computer by the respondent and her husband. The learned counsel further argued that it is evident from the pleadings of the respondent herself that she and her husband were quite ignorant about the use of a computer and, thus, the malfunctioning that surfaced up from time to time was the result of the misuse of the computer. Even then, the appellant attended to the complaints made by the respondent and provided full service to her. Sh. Rajiv Bhalla, the proprietor of the appellant firm vehemently opposed the allegations made by the respondent that the computer was defective from the very beginning and 4 that a second hand and defective computer was sold to the respondent at a very high price. He submitted that the unit was purchased from M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun, who is the all India Authorised Distributer of Hewlett-Packard (or HP Computer), vide its invoice No. 545403452 dated 31.01.2006 and sold to the respondent on 02.02.2006 vide challan No. 4784.
5. We considered these submissions and also perused the written arguments filed by the parties before the District Forum. So far as the respondent's allegation that a second hand and defective computer was sold to her, is concerned, we are convinced from the evidences adduced by the appellant that it was not a second hand computer. Further, the appellant, in its written statement filed before the District Forum had given the address of the website wherein the details / specifications of the said computer could be easily verified. In rebuttal, the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to controvert the contention of the appellant. Similarly, in respect of the controversy in computer's price, we do not find any force in the pleadings advanced by the respondent-complainant before the District Forum. As a matter of fact, the record reveals that it was the respondent's well considered decision to purchase the said computer after considering all the quotations supplied by the appellant firm. The respondent has also failed to prove that the appellant had kept her in dark in regard to computer's warranty / guarantee and had assured that free service would be provided for three years. The respondent as well as her husband appear to be highly qualified and, therefore, she must have insisted at the time of equipment's purchase to provide the warranty conditions, if it was not supplied along with equipments. The documents which have been produced by the appellant, clearly state that the computer carried a warranty of one year. The facts of the case also reveal that the computer was in a perfectly running condition after the purchase. The problem had erupted after its use for 3-4 months. However, the defect of the computer was rectified and it worked well. Again, after a few months', some defect surfaced up in the computer and it was also rectified. Thus, it cannot be said that the computer is having some inherent manufacturing defect. The contention of the appellant that the problem was due to some 5 virus which had probably entered into the computer through some external device appears to us quite logical.
6. The facts narrated by the complainant-respondent in her consumer complaint itself prove that the computer was delivered to her and installed in her house in a good running condition and it worked well for 3-4 months. Then it needed some service / repair and it again worked well for 3-4 months. Again it underwent some service or repair and after setting it right, the computer worked well for six months. These durations, when added up, come to more than a year, meaning thereby that warranty period had expired after the second service / repair. So, when the respondent approached the appellant, he submitted an estimate for the repair. Since, the computer continuously worked well for several months after each repair and the fact that during the warranty period, the appellant always provided free service, it cannot be concluded that the appellant had supplied a defective computer and had made any sort of deficiency in service during the warranty period. The District Forum has certainly failed to consider this aspect of the case and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. However, we would like to express some views in respect of the goods like computers and we are sure that the appellant, who claims to have a large base of satisfied retail and corporate clients and also says that one of his primary goals is customer's satisfaction, will give due weightage to our views. The couple (i.e. respondent and her husband) appear to be highly qualified, but they appear to be lay-persons in the use and maintenance of the computers. If we peep into the past, when the computers were in its infancy, we see that the suppliers used to give a few days' on site free operational training after installing the system. Therefore, keeping in view the credibility earned by the appellant, he should help the complainant once more and set right the computer and should also tell her the "do's and dont's" for the proper maintenance of the computer including the use of diagnostic and curative softwares for viruses. Such a move for extending help to computer savvy senior citizens like the respondent and her husband would certainly add 6 up to his firm's credibility. It would also help him in expanding the base of his satisfied customers. At the same time, we also advise the appellant to keep a proper record of free services provided by him to his customers indicating therein the dates when the complaint was received, dates when the complaint was attended to and the nature of complaint, which we found missing in the instant case. Such a record will help him in such cases where it is alleged that he did not provide prompt and timely service during the warranty period.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 101/2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)