State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yogendra S. Garudi vs M/S Microcity & Others on 7 November, 2017
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI - GOA
FA No. 04/2017
Shri Yogendra S. Garudi,
H. No. 490/7, Bhatti,
Oxel, Siolim,
Bardez-Goa, 403517. ... Appellant
v/s
1. M/s. Microcity,
5-8, Gharse Towers,
Opposite to Don Bosco School,
Panaji-Goa.
2. Kunhar Peripherals Pvt. Ltd.
Support Centre,
Shop No. 12-14, bldg. 8,
Rosary Apt, St Mary Colony,
Miramar-Goa.
3. Kunhar Peripherals Pvt. Ltd.,
KPPL-Pune, 407,
4th Floor, Nucleus Mall,
1 Church Road, Pune, 411 001. ... Respondents
Adv. Ms. Asha A. Dessai for the Appellant.
Adv. Mr. J. Ramaiya for the Respondents.
Coram: Shri. Justice U. V. Bakre, President
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Dated: 07/11/2017
ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre, President] This appeal is directed against the Judgment/Order dated 21/11/2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-Goa (the 'Forum', for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 71/2014. The Appellant was the Complainant and Respondents were the Opposite Parties (OPs, for short) in the said Complaint. Parties 2 shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Complaint.
2. The said Complaint was filed by the Complainant for a direction to the OP No. 3 to replace the laptop with a new one which is equivalent or better in hardware and software configuration than the Complainant's laptop (HP Pavilion dv5 1106ax) or pay total amount of Rs. 46,530/- which is the price of the laptop and further to direct all the OPs to pay to him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-as damages towards loss of valuable documents, personal data and work related data from the laptop, negligence about the safety of Complainant's life, deficiency in service, psychological agony and mental torture suffered by the Complainant, expenditure towards legal fees, transport and wastage of valuable time of the Complainant.
3. Case of the Complainant, in short, was as follows:- The Complainant had a laptop (HP Pavilion dv5 1106ax). On 08/08/2013, the Complainant purchased a PowerSafe Universal Laptop Adapter 90W model PS-U-90-W, with 9 connectors, from the OP No. 1 for Rs. 1650/-, which adaptor, according to PowerSafe Company, could be used with laptops of different brands including HP. The Complainant had produced his laptop before the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 had checked it and told that the said adaptor can be used for his laptop. However, while using the said adaptor, the laptop started giving electric shock and shutting down. When the Complainant used another PowerSafe 90W laptop adaptor with grounding pin for his laptop, there was no problem. The only difference was that the laptop purchased from the OP No. 1 had no grounding prong which is used to release excess charge to the earth via ground. When the Complainant approached the OP No. 1 and told them about the problem, the OP No. 1 directed him to the OP No. 2. The service personnel of the OP No. 2 inspected the adaptor and concluded that since the laptop of the Complainant had metal casing, it was giving electric shock. When the laptop was shown to an authorized HP 3 service centre, the Complainant was told that the mother board of the laptop was totally damaged. The Complainant had e-mail conversation with the owner of the OP No. 3 who denied that the laptop was damaged due to the adaptor. No safety and user manual and no compatibility list of laptops which could be used with the said adaptor were supplied by OP No. 1 along with the adaptor. The Complainant is a police sub-inspector and due to the damage to the laptop, he lost all his data and personal information and this caused him severe mental agony. Hence he filed the Complaint.
4. By way of written version, the OP No. 1, while denying the case of the Complainant, alleged as under:-
The entire complaint was based on the premise that the laptop adapter sold to the Complainant suffered from some manufacturing defect and/or any other defect which caused loss and damage to the Complainant. The Complainant himself had agreed to the terms of purchase which are enshrined in the receipt dated 08/08/2013. Hence no relief can be granted as against OP No. 1. All the claims regarding defects shall be taken up with the manufacturer as per the terms of the receipt. It is false that the Complainant had produced his laptop before the OP No. 1 and upon inspection of the same the OP No. 1 had told that the adapter can be used with his laptop. The adapter was sold to the Complainant on his own specific request and the Complainant purchased the same having complete knowledge of its quality, nature of use and terms and conditions of warranties. The Complainant had approached the OP No. 1 and had stated that there is some problem with the adapter and the OP No. 1 had directed him to the OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 was not liable to replace the damaged laptop of the Complainant.
5. The OPs No. 2 and 3, vide their written version, denied the case of the Complainant. The OPs No. 2 and 3 stated that the Complainant has conveniently suppressed the date of purchase of his laptop. The 4 OPs No. 2 and 3 stated that the said laptop was purchased on 31/01/2009 i.e. almost 5 years before the date of purported damage caused to the same. According to the OPs No. 2 and 3, it was highly probable that the said defect was a product of long/wrongful usage of the laptop or even extraneous circumstances which cannot be attributed to the product manufactured by the OPs No. 2 and 3. There is no basis for the allegations made by the Complainant. The OPs No. 2 and 3 have sold plenty of laptop adapters similar to the one purchased by the Complainant and none of them have been returned or have been complained of. The Complainant had approached the OPs No. 2 and 3 thereby complaining about electrical leakage. The said complaint was duly attended to by the technical personnel who after inspecting the laptop of the Complainant concluded that it was due to the metallic casing of the laptop and not due to the manufacturing of the adapter that there was leakage.
6. The Complainant filed the affidavit-in-evidence of his father Shri. Shripad Garodi who had the power of attorney on behalf of the Complainant. The proprietor of OP No. 1 namely Venkatesh Juwarkar filed his affidavit-in-evidence. No affidavit-in-evidence came to be filed on behalf of the OPs No. 2 and 3. Both the parties filed written arguments before the Forum.
7. Vide the impugned judgment, the Forum observed that the OP No. 1 had not sold the disputed laptop to the Complainant but had sold the Powersafe Universal Laptop adapter. The Forum observed that the case of the Complainant was for the laptop and not for the adapter. It was found that the said adapter did not have any functional problem but the laptop of the Complainant was having the said functional problem and the Complainant cannot link the said functional problem of the laptop to the adapter and take a plea that because of the adapter, the laptop got damaged. The Forum held that it was mistake on the part of the Complainant to buy the adapter 5 without user manual. The Complaint therefore came to be dismissed. The Complainant is aggrieved with the said judgment and order.
8. Records and proceedings of Complaint No. 71/2014 were called for. Ms. Asha Dessai, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the Complainant and Mr. J. Ramaiya, Lr. Counsel argued on behalf of the OPs. In the present Appeal, the Complainant has filed an affidavit-in- evidence of alleged registered electrical contractor namely Shri. Upendra Haldankar. Both the parties have also filed written arguments on record.
9. We have gone through the entire material on record.
10. Mr. Upendra Haldankar has not produced any document to prove that he is a registered electrical contractor. First of all, he is not an electrical or electronic or computer engineer to have technical knowledge of the laptops and laptop adaptors. The said laptop was allegedly damaged sometime in the year 2013. According to Mr. Upendra Haldankar he checked the laptop and the adaptor. He has not stated as to when he did this. The affidavit of Mr. Haldankar was filed on 04/05/2017. Hence, if at all Mr. Haldankar had checked the said items, then he had done that in the year 2017, i.e. after 4 years. In his affidavit-in-evidence, the said Shri. Upendra Haldankar has stated that the adapter used by the Complainant was two pin and therefore did not have an earthing point due to which the electricity which leaked did not have any way to be managed and therefore the laptop was damaged. It is not known as to how Mr. Haldankar can say so when he had not seen that the said adaptor was used for the said laptop. Shri. Haldankar has stated that the PowerSafe Universal Laptop Adapter 90W Model PS-U-90W, with 9 connectors Adapter is not having grounding prong and therefore it is not fit to use on the laptops having metallic casing. The above is alright. The Complainant ought not to have used the said adapter for his laptop which had metallic casing. Mr. Haldankar has further stated that the 6 Complainant ought to have been given the same adapter which was given by the Company along with the laptop and that the OP No. 1 ought to have given him a proper adapter. The laptop was purchased by the Complainant, not from the OP No. 1, but from 'Comtech Systems' that also on 31/01/2009 but the adapter which is subject matter of the Complaint was purchased by him from the OP No. 1 on 08/08/2013. In fact, the Complainant should not have purchased the said adapter without grounding prong if the same was not fit for his laptop. The affidavit of Mr. Haldankar is one-sided and cannot be relied upon.
11. It is evident from the evidence on record that OP No. 1 had not deceived the Complainant but had sold to the Complainant the PowerSafe Universal Laptop Adapter 90W Model PS-U-90W, with 9 connectors which did not have grounding prong and if the Complainant needed the laptop adapter with the grounding prong, it was for the Complainant not to purchase the laptop adapter without grounding prong from OP No. 2. It is not the case of the Complainant that the OP No. 1 falsely represented to him that the adapter has grounding prong or that negligently the OP No. 1 supplied to him the adapter without grounding casing. The said types of adapters are all manufactured without grounding prongs. The Complainant had not purchased the laptop from OP No. 1. In fact the laptop of the Complainant was an old one purchased on 31/01/2009 i.e. almost 5 years before the date of damage to the said laptop. The possibility that the damage was caused due to wrongful usage or some other extraneous circumstances cannot be ruled out. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the Complainant to establish that he had taken the said laptop to the shop of the OP No. 1 and that the OP No. 1 had inspected the same and had told him that the adapter purchased by him can be used to his laptop. PowerSafe Company was not a party to the Complaint and therefore the statement of the Complainant that PowerSafe Company had informed him that the said adapter can be 7 used with laptops of HP cannot be believed. No deficiency in service on the part of any of the OPs has been proved by the Complainant.
12. Lr. Counsel for the Complainant has relied upon and has produced copies of the order dated 19/09/2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of "Godrej G. E. Appliances Ltd., And ......vs. Moti Dharani" and the order dated 01/04/2015 of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2437/2011 ("National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. Malda"). We have gone through the said judgments. The facts of the said cases are totally different and the said judgments cannot at all be applied to the facts of the present case.
13. There is absolutely no merit in the present Appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav] [Justice Shri. U. V. Bakre]
Member President
sp/-