State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Provat Kumar Roy vs M/S. Alco Infotech Pvt. Ltd. on 26 December, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1148/2015 ( Date of Filing : 14 Oct 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/09/2015 in Case No. CC//46/2012 of District Hooghly) 1. Provat Kumar Roy S/o, Sri Sankar Nath Roy, Proprietor of M/S. Roy Enterprise of No. 8, Ghosal Para Lane, Nabagram, P.O - Mallikpara, P.S - Serampore, Dist - Hooghly, Pin - 712 203. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Alco Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 5, Princep Street, P.O - Princep Street, Kolkata - 72. 2. Customer Care Executive, Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Audogodi, Bangalore - 560 030. 3. The Authority Concern, Redington (India) Ltd. Hp Service Centre. Unit No. - 5, Ist Floor, No. - 10, Wood Street, Kolkata - 700 016. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Debdas Rudhra., Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Raju Chowdhury. Authorised Person., Advocate Dated : 26 Dec 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum dated 17-09-2015, passed in CC/46/2012, whereof the complaint case has been dismissed, this Appeal is filed by Sri Provat Kumar Roy, the Complainant.
The complaint case, in short, is that he purchased one printer from the OP No. 1 on 04-04-2011. Within the warranty period, the said machine became defunct number of times. As repeated servicing of the same did not bore any fruitful result, he asked for replacement of the same which was, however, not acceded to by the OPs. Therefore, the complaint case was filed.
The OP No. 1 did not contest the case.
The OP Nos. 2 & 3, on the other hand, submitted that owing to voltage related problem, the said machine went out of order repeatedly. They, therefore, refused to accept any responsibility for the frequent break down of the machine.
Decision with reasons Due service was effected upon all the Respondents. Initially though the Respondent No. 2 appeared through its Ld. Advocate, later on, he did not turn up to defend this Respondent. At the time of hearing, therefore, we heard the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 3.
It appears from the Service Call Reports that the visiting service technicians suspected voltage fluctuation being the primary cause of frequent disruption of the printer machine.
In this regard, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant drew our attention to the letters issued by Belel Electrical Works (Govt. Licensed Electrical Contractor) and another letter of the WBSEDCL dated 10-02-2015, both of whom were unanimous in their view that there was no abnormality in the electric line of the Appellant.
It is a clear pointer of the fact that the concerned Service technicians went terribly wrong in making proper diagnosis of the disease of the printer machine. It is not understood, as to why the Ld. District Forum did not take any cognizance of this valuable piece of documents and dismissed the complaint case simply on the basis of sheer assumption of the service technicians of the Respondents.
The subject machine is gathering dust since the last 7 years. Moreover, repeated endeavours of the Respondents proved futile to make the machine functional. Therefore, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Respondents to replace the defective machine with a new one, else refund the price of the machine.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands allowed against the Respondents with a cost of Rs. 12,000/- being payable by the Respondents to the Appellants. Respondents shall replace the defective machine with a new one of similar specification or refund the price of the machine to the Appellant. Respondents shall also pay compensation worth Rs. 60,000/- to the Appellant. Non compliance of this order within 40 days from today shall entail payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the total awarded sum from the date of filing of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made. The impugned order is hereby set aside. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER