CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal No.697/2008 Date of Filing: 12/05/2008

@ M.A.No.992/2008-Stay

In Consumer Complaint No.:151/2007

District Consumer Forum: Nashik Date of Order: 04/03/2009



Expert Trading Corporation, Appellant

Prop- Harpreetsingh Anand (Bobby Singh) (Org.O.P.No.1)

4-7, Guru Ashish, Opp.Telecom Exchange,

Canada Corner, Nashik,

V/s.

1. Smt. Namrata V. Bhutani, Respondents

Director- S & S Wire Prodcuts, (Org.Complainant)

F-99, MIDC Satpura,

Nashik,

2. Hewlett- Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

166, Central Plaza, CSt Roa,d

Kalina, Santacruz (E),

Mumbai.



Corum : Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present : Adv.Shri U.B.Wavikar for appellant.

Adv.Smt.Anita Marathe@Adv.Shri Chandwadkar for respondent .1.

Adv.Shri Priti Tembekar for respondent no.2.





-: ORAL ORDER :-

Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This is an appeal filed by the Expert Trading Corporation (Dealer) having aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint no.151/2007. While allowing the consumer complaint the Forum below was pleased to direct the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 (Dealer and Manufacturer) jointly and severally to replace the Lap Top within 30 days or if it is not possible to pay amount of 37,500/- to the complainant.

Facts to the extent material may be sated as under:

The complainant/ Smt Namrata V. Bhutani had purchased one Lap Top from opposite party no.1/appellant herein on 23/03/2007 for Rs.37,499/-. It was the case of the complainant that since beginning the Lap Top was having manufacturing defect. There used to appear one line on the screen of Lap Top. Charger of the Lap Top was also out of order. Therefore, she approached opposite party no.1 with the said grievance. The dealer had taken the same to the service station of opposite party no.2. Initially the complainant was told that for removing defect Rs.12,000/- was required but thereafter, she further told that Rs.17,885.92 was required for repairing the said Lap Top. According to the complainant, she was given a defective piece of Lap Top and therefore, she filed consumer complaint for either for refund of amount of Lap Top or replacement of the same.

Notice was issued to both the opp.parties. Opposite party no.2/Manufacturer did not remain present despite service of notice. So, it was proceeded ex-parte. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant. It was the contention of opposite party no.1 that Lap Top was purchased for commercial purpose and as such, the consumer complaint is not tenable in law. It pleaded that complaintant has filed false complaint against him. It further pleaded that it was not the manufacturer of Lap Top. It was simply dealer and defect if any would be rectified by manufacturing company and therefore, complaint as against him should be dismissed. He further pleaded that Lap Top was within warranty period and defect of this nature should have been rectified by the manufacturer within warranty period and therefore, dealer pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below held that the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 were guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant was given defective piece. It was having inherent manufacturing defect and it was not rectified by either of them during warranty period and therefore, the Forum below directed both the opp.parties by impugned award to replace the Lap Top or in the alternative to pay Rs.37,500/- towards the cost of Lap Top to the complainant. Aggrieved by this award, the delaer/or.gopp.party no.1 has filed this appeal.

We heard Adv.Shri U.B.Wavikar for the appellant, Adv.Smt. Anita marathe @ Adv. Shri Chandwadkar for respondent no.1 and Adv.Shri Priti Tembekar for respondent no.2.

We are finding that the Forum below clearly committed error of law in assigning liability on the dealer for the manufacturing defect found in the Lap Top purchased by the complainant. After purchase of Lap Top from day one the complainant found that the Lap Top was having some defect on the screen. It was not rectified by the appellant. The complainant was directed to go to manufacturing company or their service station. But manufacturing company did not bother to rectify the manufacturing defect despite giving quotation, which is at page 49 of appeal paper book. They had taken a stand that the display panel would not be exchanged. Such type of a stand taken by manufacturing company is also amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. If within given warranty period any defect is found in the Lap Top then it is the duty of the manufacturing company to repair the same and to give their service to the purchaser.

Nothing of this sort was done by the manufacturing company of Lap Top. The Forum below however held that manufacturing company as well as dealer is jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. In fact, it is only the manufacturing company, who is liable and dealer is simply authorized dealer to sell the Lap Top. After sale service has to be rendered by manufacturing company from its authorized service station. They failed in their duty and therefore, the Forum below rightly fastened the liability on the manufacturing company. But it erred in law in holding the appellant (dealer) jointly and severally liable with manufacturing company/respondent no.2.

Thus, by allowing this appeal a relief will have to be given to appellant, who is a Dealer. Hence, we pass the following order:-





:-ORDER-:



1. Appeal is partly allowed.

2. Impugned order dated 11/04/2008 against the present appellant is quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed as against the org.opp.party no.1 only.

4. Order stands intact so far as opposite party no.2 is concerned.

5. Amount deposited by the appellant be refunded back to him.

6. M.A.No.992/2008-Stay stands disposed of

7. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

8. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member