State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Macintel Solutions vs Arjun De on 21 September, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/243/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/01/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/113/2011 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Macintel Solutions 190C, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata - 700 029. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Arjun De 61, Pratapaditya Road, P.S. - Tollygunge, Kolkata - 700 029. 2. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19th Floor, Concorde Tower - C, UB City No. 24, Vittal Maurya Road, Bangalore - 560 011. 3. Nice Foto Makers (P) Ltd. 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, P.S. - Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sudarsan Roy, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Souvik Das, Advocate Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Argha Banerjee., Advocate Dated : 21 Sep 2016 Final Order / Judgement
Date of filing : 24.02.2014 Date of hearing : 09.09.2016 The instant appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act " ) is at the instance of Opposite Party No.2 to impeach the Order No. 26 dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - I in Consumer Complaint No.113/2011 whereby the Consumer Complaint lodged by the Respondent No.1 U/s.12 of the Act was allowed on contest against the Appellant and exparte against the Pro -Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with direction upon the appellant to return the defect free computer to the respondent no.1 within 45 days, to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Respondent No.1 herein being Complainant initiated the complaint on the ground that on 16.01.2010 he purchased a computer/lap top, Apple Mac Book White at the price of Rs.55,500/- from OP No.3. Within three months of its purchase and within the warranty period the said computer started mal-functioning. In the month of July, 2010, the said computer was going slow running. On 13.07.2010, complainant handed-over the computer to OP No.2. On 15.07.2010, complainant received an e-mail and also received a quotation for repairing the said machine on payment of Rs.50,599/-. It has been stated by OP No.2 that the complainant had put some liquid in the computer and as such they are unable to treat the machine under warranty. Complainant has asserted that he had never open the computer at any point of time and the quotation of OP No.2 signifies adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, the Respondent No.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with directions upon the Opposite Party No.2 /Appellant to repair the said computer with free of cost, to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/-, to pay litigation cost of Rs. 4,000/- etc. The Appellant being Opposite Party No.2 by filing a Written Version has stated that on 13.07.2010 complainant brought his scratched, dent, fully dead computer to them. The Opposite Party No.2 has categorically stated that they had not manufactured the computer of the complainant having manufacturing defect and whatever defect has caused due to the misuse and negligent use of the computer by the complainant and as such the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint, with certain directions as indicated above, which prompted the Opposite Party No.2 to prefer this appeal.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 respectively.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record it would reveal that the Respondent No.1 had purchased one Lap Top being Apple Mac book white Md Mc 207 ZP/a W8943 Up 78 PN at the price of Rs. 55,500/- inclusive of all taxes from its authorised dealer i.e. Proforma Respondent No.3 on 16.01.2010. It is also evident that on 13.07.2010 the Respondent No.1 handed over the said Lap Top to the Appellant for its servicing. It may be pertinent to record that Pro-Respondent No.3 is the authorised dealer of Pro-Respondent No.2 and Appellant is the authorised service centre for servicing etc. Now the 'Applecare Service Report' dated 13.07.2010 indicates that 'the system not getting on' and in the column of condition of equipment it has been mentioned that one hairline crack in charging point, inherent part was dent and scratches all over the body which 'needs to check'. The said report was duly received by the Respondent No.1 after putting his signature. In diagnosis report dated 14.07.2010 it has been mentioned - " Found liquid inside the system all over the Logic Board, Top - Case, Optical Drive and Magsafe Part. All the LSI are red, its count as physical damaged . To repair this unit above parts are needs to replace.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a service centre and not manufacturer and further when it is found that the respondent no.1 mishandled it by misuse or abuse, question of warranty does not arise. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to the conditions of warranty . It has been specifically mentioned that the warranty will not be applicable in case of damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse and other external causes. Therefore, the one year limited hardware warranty would not be applicable in this case when it was found that some liquid was put inside the computer.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that as there is no opinion of expert as to allegation of liquid damage inside the computer, the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has contended that the incident of liquid in the computer, if any, has done by the Appellant and when they handed over the Laptop to the Appellant there was no such damage.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The fact remains that on 13.07.2010 i.e. within 6 months from the date of its purchase, specifically within the warranty period the Laptop was made over by the Respondent No.1 to the Appellant for its servicing to detect its defect. At the time of handing over the Laptop it was found that it was not functioning at all. After inspection it was found that the system was totally dead. It has also been observed that there was hairline crack in charging point and scratches all over the body. It signifies that the Laptop was not properly maintained which resultant to such damage within a short span of six months from the date of purchase.
It is the case of the Respondent No.1/ Complainant that he did not put any liquid during his custody and if any liquid is found that has happened during the custody of the Appellant. Whether the Laptop was damaged during the custody of Respondent No.1 or the Appellant is a question of fact but it is quite apparent that at the time of handing over the Laptop, its condition was miserable. The Respondent No.1 did not make any prayer for appointment of any technical person to ascertain the real fact behind such defect and the age of said defect.
In such a situation, the observation of the Ld. District Forum - "It is unjustified that a Service Centre has demanded Rs. 50,599/- + taxes where cost of the computer was Rs.53,365/- . This very quotation amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs" does not appear to me an appreciation of real fact. The Laptop itself was in a damaged condition and it was not functioning at all on 13.07.2010 when it was placed by the Respondent No.1 to the Appellant for ascertaining the defects.
Therefore, giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the Ld. District Forum should not have arrived at a decision of deficiency in services on the part of the Appellant without ascertaining the real cause of such defect after appointing a technical person. Inspite of having opportunity, when the Respondent No.1 did not pray for appointment of any technical person, the impugned order should be interfered with. In other words, the Ld. District Forum has passed the order impugned without appreciation of materials on record and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
For the reasons aforementioned, the instant appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The Order No.26 dated 15.01.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/113/2011 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the CC/113/2011 stands dismissed.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER