Case: Sri. Mainak Ghosal Vs Sri. Ayan Adhikary, Owner, Computer Zone. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Judges | Aloke Chakrabarti, J. (President), A.K. Ray and Silpi Majumder, Members |
| Issue | Consumer |
| Judgement Date | February 05, 2010 |
| Court | West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
S. Majumder, Member, (West Bengal)
-
This appeal has arisen against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Nadia, on 23.10.2009, in its case no-09/47, wherein the Forum below has dismissed the complaint on contest against the OP without any cost. Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment the Appellant-Complainant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission contending the same facts in the memorandum of appeal as stated by him in the complaint petition.
-
The brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the Forum below were that he purchased one computer on 10.02.2008 from the OP which shortly yielded to malfunctioning. He reported this to the OP who asked him to transfer the PC for servicing. But the OP did not repair the same rather he suggested him to repair the PC from outside or to seek help of the Company. Accordingly the Complainant tried to repair the monitor from local market, but failed. So he reported the matter to the Company RT Outsourcing Wing as it was the duty and obligation to the OP for repairing the PC, which he did not do. Thereafter finding no other alternative he filed the complaint petition before the District Forum praying for direction upon the OP to pay him compensation of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards repairing cost along with litigation cost and other relief's.
-
Before this Commission the Appellant has submitted that the Forum below without considering the complaint in a proper manner has erroneously passed the judgment, which is liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing the present appeal.
-
Before the Forum below the OP took the plea in his w/v that the Complainant damaged in the screw-up-system of the cable jack while he tried to disconnect the monitor from CPU. The further submission of the OP was that warranty was provided by the Company and this OP is a service centre which used to arrange services by the consumers who purchase goods from this Company only i.e. Acer India Private Limited, but the Company is not ready to give any free warranty for physically damaged computer and according the OP had prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as the Complainant damaged the cable by using force as a result of which the Company did not give any free service. So this OP has no deficiency in service and no liability to repair the monitor of the computer alleged by the Complainant.
-
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial