State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Atharva Sharma vs Hitech Multimedia & Ors on 16 May, 2024
Appeal Nos.: Atharva Sharma Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/254 Vs. 16/05/2024
Hitech Multimedia & Ors.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 03/11/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 30/04/2024
Date of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024
APPEAL No.- FA/23/254
IN THE MATTER OF :
Atharva Sharma, S/o. Shri Akhilesh Sharma,
R/o. Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidhyalaya Road, Dayalband, Bilaspur,
Dist. BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant
Through: Miss Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate
Vs.
1. Hitech Multimedia,
Through: Pro. Ashish Nayak,
Shop No.203, Jain Plaza, Near CMD College Chowk, Bilaspur,
Dist. BILASPUR (CG) ... Respondent No.1.
Through: Proceeded ex-parte.
2. Acer India Limited,
Embassy Heights, Magrath Road, 6th floor, No.13,
Dist. BANGALORE (KARNATAKA) - 560 025 ... Respondent No.2.
Through: Shri Abhay Chandrawanshi, Advocate.
3. F1 Info Solution and Services Pvt. Ltd.
Nagpur, Malviya Road, Sitabardhi,
NAGPUR - 440 012 ... Respondent No.3.
Through: Proceeded ex-parte.
4. Sysnet Global Tech Pvt. Ltd.
Medical Chowk, Rambagh Layout,
NAGPUR - 440 003 ... Respondent No.4.
Through: Notice un-served.
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Miss Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhay Chandrawanshi, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
The matter was proceeded ex-parte against the respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Notice not issued again allowing I.A. No.01/24 i.e. prayer of the appellant
to the effect that no relief has been sought against respondent No.4
ORDER
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is directed against order dated 25.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Commission" for short) in complaint case No.CC/2022/134 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant Allowed Page 1 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Atharva Sharma Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/254 Vs. 16/05/2024
Hitech Multimedia & Ors.
herein was allowed and opposite party No.2/ respondent No.02 herein Manufacturer was directed to replace the laptop in question under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act with a new laptop of the same configuration within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Alternatively it was directed that if such laptop has currently become obsolete or it is not possible to provide laptop of the same configuration, then the opposite party No.2 manufacturing company shall provide a laptop of higher configuration to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 will take back the old laptop on their own cost. The opposite party No.2 was also directed to pay compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (three thousand).
2. The opposite party Nos.1 & 3 / respondent Nos.1 & 3 have been exonerated from any liability in the impugned order and there is no order or discussion about the opposite party No.04/ respondent No.04. The impugned order has not been challenged by opposite party No.02/ respondent No.02 against which the above directions have been passed.
3. As per case of complainant/ appellant he was student of Advanced Diploma in Visual Effects and Maya Pro Specialized in 3D which was to be completed in 29 months from Year 2021 till beginning of the year 2024. Without computer/ laptop study of the said course was not possible, hence after getting admission in February 2021 the laptop in question was purchased on 23.06.2021. For the purpose of completing his studies, due to long pendency of the matter he had to purchase a new laptop for Rs.2,43,916/-. But overlooking the above facts learned District Commission has granted optional relief at the place of actual relief sought in paragraph No.14 & 17 of the complaint.
Allowed Page 2 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Atharva Sharma Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/254 Vs. 16/05/2024
Hitech Multimedia & Ors.
4. Looking to the fact that the impugned order has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 the only issue involved in this appeal is that whether the learned District Commission ought to have directed for return of the consideration of the laptop in question at the place of its replacement.
5. Final arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant and respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 heard. Perused the record as well as the case laws relied by learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant and written arguments of learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant Miss. Shivangi Agrawal reiterating the averments made in the complaint and in the appeal memo has argued before us that as study of the appellant/ complainant was being suffered, he had to purchase another laptop and he does not want to get replacement of the laptop in question, hence the entire consideration amount of laptop be directed to be returned. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 has argued that they are ready to comply with the impugned order.
7. Learned District Commission on the basis of proposal made by the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 in paragraph No.03 of their written version that they were ready to replace the complainant's existing laptop with an Acer branded new laptop, has passed directions for replacement of the laptop in question. Whereas the appellant/ complainant in the relief clause of the complaint prayed for return of entire consideration of laptop in question along with compensation of Rs.85,000/- (eighty five thousand) on different heads.
Allowed Page 3 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Atharva Sharma Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/254 Vs. 16/05/2024
Hitech Multimedia & Ors.
8. Looking to the fact that the appellant/ complainant purchased the laptop in question for his studies of Advanced Diploma in Visual Effects and Maya Pro Specialized in 3D course which was being affected due to alleged manufacturing defects in the laptop in question, he had to purchase a new laptop for doing his aforesaid course, which has been over at beginning of 2024. In the written arguments filed before the District Commission also the appellant/ complainant argued that he had to purchase a new laptop for Rs.2,43,916/-. Looking to the above facts and the specific relief sought in the complaint for return of entire consideration of the laptop in question, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to modify the impugned order to the extent that entire consideration of the laptop in question be returned to the appellant/ complainant.
9. We are also fortified with our opinion from the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court relied by learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 416 "17. We have referred to the legal regime under the Consumer Protection Act, only to show that the Commission has the power and jurisdiction to direct return of money under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, if a consumer so chooses. The freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the Consumer and it is the duty of the Courts to honour it."
As the appellant/ complainant sought specific relief in the complaint for refund of consideration of the laptop in question and in the given situation that he had already purchased another laptop for his studies which is now over, it appears to be justified as discussed above that the impugned order needs to be modified.
10. As the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 at the very beginning made a proposal in the written version itself for replacement of the laptop in question with a new one and also looking to the fact that it appears that Allowed Page 4 of 5 Appeal Nos.: Atharva Sharma Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/254 Vs. 16/05/2024
Hitech Multimedia & Ors.
the said laptop is still with the appellant/ complainant, we do not find it appropriate to pass direction for payment of interest on the consideration of the laptop in question.
11. Therefore, with the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that this appeal has got substance to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is modified only to the extent that at the place of replacement of the laptop in question the respondent No.2/ opposite party No.2 shall return entire amount of consideration of the laptop in question Rs.1,21,000/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty One Thousand) to the appellant/ complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which said amount will be payable with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order. Remaining portion of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/05/2024 /05/2024
Pronounced on: 16th May 2024
Allowed Page 5 of 5