State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Global Solutions vs Ved Kumar Bareja on 15 January, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 15.01.2007 Appeal No.1728/2003 (Arising from the order dated 04.04.2003 passed by District Forum(Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint case No.251/2002) M/s. Global Solutions Appellant. 173, Pushpanjali through Mr. A. Sangeeta, Vikas Marg advocate. Delhi. Versus 1. Sh. Ved Kumar Bareja Respondent B.F.H. 90, Shalimar Bagh in person. Delhi. 2. M/s. Softech Computers Respondent Delhi Limited, 203 Skylark, 60 Nehru Place, New Delhi CORAM: Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. On account of having failed to replace hard disk of the computer for months together whereby respondent No.1 had suffered immensely, the District Forum has found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and has vide impugned order dated 04.04.2003 directed it to refund Rs.51,000/- towards cost of the computer and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The case of the respondent No.1 was that respondent No.1 got the computer assembled from the appellant on 24.01.2000 as per specified configuration. However, its hard disk failed and he went to the assembler with the same and asked producer of the Hard Disk (M/s. Samsung India Limited as the Samsung gives three years warranty on the Hard Disk). On further investigation it was found that the Hard Disk had not been purchased from the Samsung India Ltd. as claimed by the appellant nor did the appellant attend to the complaint and in the absence of the computer the studies of his sons who were doing Computer Engineering suffered immensely. Respondent sought replacement of the Hard Disk and further Rs.5,000/- towards mental torture and litigation cost.
4. Inspite of service of the notice appellant did not appear and as such the version of the appellant was not before the District Forum.
5. According to the appellant service was not affected upon the appellant and on merits it was alleged that the first complaint was made on 19.05.2003 for replacement of the Hard Disk. Since respondent had used the computer satisfactorily for more than three years it could not be replaced free of cost as there was no manufacturing defect and moreover there was no warranty on the Hard Disk as claimed by respondent No.1.
6. Even if we accept the version of the appellant still the fact remains that the Hard Disk was not replaced for months together inspite of the fact that the computer remained with it. Another disturbing fact that appellant has alleged is that the Hard Disk was manufactured by Samsung India Ltd. whereas on investigation it was found that Hard Disk was not manufactured by Samsung India Ltd.
7. Since the respondent No.1 had only asked for replacement of the Hard Disk, we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- including the cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. The payment shall be made within one month.
8. FDR/Bank Guarantee if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 15th day of January 2007.
(Justice J.D.Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri