Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)





Consumer complaint No 204/06

Date of presentation: 11.7.2006

Date of decision: 20.3.2009



Prabhat Kumar Sharma, resident of village and Post Office Haripur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (HP)



Complainant Versus



1. Mr. Anshul Sisodia son of Shri Amar Nath Sasodia, Proprietor Hts. Institution VPO Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra (HP).



2. Mr. Chandan Grover Proprietor Prestige Computers, Upper Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra (HP)



Opposite parties



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986



PRESIDENT: A.S.JASWAL

MEMBER: PABNA SHARMA & PARDEEP DOGRA



For the complainant: Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.

For O.Ps: Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate



ORDER

A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)



In nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that he is lecturer in the Govt College, Haripur Guler and that on dated 6.12.2004, he had purchased personal computer from Mr. Anshul Sisodia, Proprietor Heights Institution, Dhaliara Tehsil Dehra for Rs.28000/- vide cash memo No.102. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 had not provided cover packing curtain of the components for processor, mother board 845(mercury), RAM 128, FDD, CD R/W at the time of deliver. It is further asserted that the computer had stopped functioning within six months of its purchase. Upon this, he visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested him to do the needful and that on several requests made to him, on dated 2.8.2005, the opposite party No.1 accompanied with one Rinku had visited his house. When he failed to defect the fault in the computer, he took the cabinet etc. to his place of business at Dhaliara by making promise to bring back the same on the following day, but he failed to do the repairs. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 telephonically informed him that the UPS and Mother Board had been sent to company for its replacement. It is asserted that the opposite party returned the CPU of personal computer through, aforesaid, Rinku on dated 13.9.2005 except Mother Board which is old one. It is asserted that the defect in the UPS and Modem were not rectified. The Hard Disc had been changed and that CPU 1.7 GHZ instead of CPU 2.4GHS had been inserted. The parts so replaced were not original. The important files in the hard disk had been removed without the permission of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 had supplied a defective computer to him and thus committed deficiency in service.

2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite party No.1, by asserting that the complainant had not purchased the computer from him. So the question of delivery of computer to the complainant by him does not arise at all. Other averments have been denied in toto.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that during the proceedings of the present complaint, Mr. Chandan Grover, Proprietor Prestige Computers, had been impleaded opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2, in his reply has stated that the allegations made in the complaint, are not related to him. The alleged bill dated 6.12.20004 had not been given by him to complainant. Since, the complainant has not alleged any deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2, in his complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable against him.

4. This Forum on 5.9.2007 framed the following points for determination:-



1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service, as alleged OPC

2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable, as alleged? OPOP

3. Relief



4. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-

Point no.1: No

Point No.2: Decided accordingly



Relief: The complaint is dismissed as per operative part of the order.



REASONS FOR FINDINGS

POINTS NO.1 & 2



5. Both these points are inter connected and inter linked, hence are taken up together for determination, in order to avoid repetition in discussion and for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from bill No.102 dated 6.12.2004, it stands proved on record that the personal computer had been purchased by the complainant forRs.28,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that since the opposite party No.1 had failed to repair the computer to the satisfaction of the complainant and that he also replaced its components with poor quality components and replaced the mother board with old one; the deficiency in service on his part is proved.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that from the documents, which hve been relied upon by the complainant, his case totally fails against opposite party No.1.From bill No.102 dated 6.12.2004, Annexure C2, the contention of the complainant to have purchased the personal computer from opposite party No.1, becomes totally false because as per this bill, he had purchased the personal computer from Prestige Computers, Upper Bazar Nagrota Bagwan. Learned counsel further submitted that no evidence, worth the name, has been brought on record by the complainant to show that Prestige Computers has any concern with Heights Institution, Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, of which Sh. Anshul Sisodia is the proprietor. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for Anshul Sisodia to have gone to the house of the complainant in order to get repaired the computer and also to have taken its alleged components for repair/sending the same to the company.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has urged that when regard is given to the allegations made in the complaint, it is abundantly clear that as per the complainant, the computer had been purchased from opposite party No.1 and that there are no allegations, whatsoever, against opposite party No.2 to either have sold the computer to the complainant or taken any steps to get it repaired.

8. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record available on the file was gone into in detail. Ex.CW1 is the proof affidavit of the complainant, wherein he has supported his version, as stated in the complaint, on material particulars. From his affidavit, it is again borne out that he sticks to his version to have purchased the computer from opposite party No.1. Annexure C1 is the receipt of Prestige Computers on which reliance has been placed by the complainant. Its perusal goes to show that the payment of the computer had been made by the complainant on different dates. Annexure C-2 is the photo copy of bill no.102. It has been issued by Prestige Computer C/O Heights Institution, Dhaliara, H.O. Nagrota Bagwan, on dated 6.12.2004. In this bill, the details of components of the computer have been mentioned, valuing Rs.28,000/-. Both these receipts go to show that the personal computer had been purchased by complainant from Prestige Computer, having head office at Nagrota Bagwan and not from opposite party NO.1, who has its head office in village Dhaliara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. So far as opposite party No.2, viz Mr. Chandan Grover, Proprietor Prestige Computers, upper Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra is concerned, no allegations have been made by the complainant to the effect that he had purchased the computer form it. Moreover, there is no evidence led by the complainant to prove that opposite party No.1 has any concern with opposite party No.2.

9. Ex.OPW1 is the proof of affidavit of Sh. Anshul Sasodia, wherein he has stated, on oath, that he had not sold the personal computer to the complainant in the consideration amount of Rs.28000/- on dated 6.12.2004 vide bill No.102. He has also stated that there is no relation/concern of opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2. It has also been denied that opposite party No.1 was running professional work under the supervision and control of opposite party No.2.

10. In his affidavit, Ex.OPW2-1, Sh. Chander Grover, has stated that he does not know that the complainant had purchased the said computer form opposite party No.1 for Rs.28000/- on dated 6.12.2004 vide bill No.102, with one year warranty. He further stated that opposite party No.2 has no concern with opposite party No.1.

11. From the stand taken by the opposite parties and also the evidence led by them in support thereof, it is abundantly clear, on record, that they had not sold the personal computer to the complainant. We may reiterate that even the documents i.e. Ex.C1 and C2, which have been relied upon by the complainant also go to falsify the case of the complainant to have purchased the personal computer from opposite party No.1. In this case, one Sh. Rinku, who is alleged to have visited the house of the complainant alongwith Anshul, Proprietor Heights Institution, was a very material witness because after the alleged repair of the parts of the computer, the same have been returned to the complainant through him by opposite party No.1. Further, it was he who had told the complainant that after repair CPU 1.7 GHZ has been provided instead of CPU 2.4GHZ (Intel P-4) and further that old mother board had been affixed. Since the complainant has failed to file/tender the affidavit of said Rinku, his case further suffers so far as the alleged taking away of the components/parts of the computer for repair by opposite party No.1 is concerned. When the complainant has failed to prove the purchase of the computer either from opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2, the alleged deficiency in service on the part of either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 has not been proved. Hence, point no.1 is answered in negative and point No.2 is decided accordingly.

12. No other point argued or urged before us.

Relief

13. In view of our findings on points No.1 and 2 above, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and the file after due completion be consigned to the record-room.