Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/20/2017 ( Date of Filing : 07 Oct 2017 ) 1. Dipankar Debnath, R/O. MV.43,PO/PS.Malkangiri,Odisha. Malkangiri Odisha ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Prop.Nirmal Baba Digital City AT.Reclamation Colony,Malkangiri, Malkangiri Odisha 2. The Care Manager, Dell Intl. service India Pvt.,Ltd. Divyashree Greers Karamangala Inner Ring Road Domlir, Post.Bengalor,Pin.760071 Karnatak 3. M/S. Dell intel, Service India Pvt.,Ltd. Koramangala Inner Ring Road,Domlur, Bengalor Pin-560071 Karnatak ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Choudury PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sabita Samantray MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 09 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement The fact of the case of complainant is that on 12.12.2016, he purchased a Dell Intl. computer from O.P.No.1 vide model ? DELL VOSTRO 3000 series Sl. No. C 1 XKLC2, BEXPRESS code 26238242306 alongwith a warranty certificate and paid Rs. 29,500/- vide bill no. 104 dated 12.12.2016 to the O.P. No. 1. Further his allegation is that soon after the purchase, the computer exhibited keyboard defects for which the computer could not worked out for which the complainant approached the O.P.No.1, who in return received the computer for repair through the service engineer of company and returned the same by saying the computer is repaired, but again after some days, it showed the previous defects and the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the computer is having inherent manufacturing defects, thereafter, he contacted with the O.Ps no. 2 & 3 but which got in veined.Thus, showing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace a defect free computer set or to refund the cost of computer and Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him. On the other hand, the O.Ps No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the purchase of alleged computer by complainant from him, has stated that due to defect in the computer, the complainant had met with him for its replacement, who in return repaired it through the service engineer of the company, but the same problems exhibited due to manufacturing defect and since the alleged computer was serviced by the O.P.No.2, denying his liability and with other submissions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him. On the other hand, the O.Ps No. 2 & 3, who are belonged to same company, though have received the notice from this Fora but did not appear in the case inspite of repeated adjournments were given keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them. Complainant has filed certain documents showing the correspondence made between the complainant and the O.P. No. 2 & 3, alongwith a postal status of RL no. RO860103392IN which was sent to the O.P.No. 2, which clearly shows that the notices of this Fora are validly and properly served on them on 30.10.2017, hence they set exparte on 07.12.2017. We have heard from the complainant at length, and non appearance in the instant case and not participating in the present proceeding by the O.P. No. 2 & 3, makes the allegations of complainant unchallenged. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Dell Intl. computer from O.P.No.1 vide model ? DELL VOSTRO 3000 series Sl. No. C 1 XKLC2, BEXPRESS code 26238242306 alongwith warranty certificate and paid Rs. 29,500/- vide bill no. 104 dated 12.12.2016 to the O.P.No.1. Further it is revealed that soon after purchase of the alleged computer, the said computer exhibited keyboard defects for which the computer could not worked out for which the complainant approached the O.P.No.1, who in return received the computer for repair through the service engineer of company and returned the same after its repair was made, but after some days, the same problems occurred, and the submissions of O.P.No. 1 in this regard made in his counter version makes it clear that due to such problems in the alleged computer, the complainant had been to the shop of O.P. No. 1 for several times, which clearly proves that the alleged computer has some internal mechanical defects. Further non appearance of the O.P.No. 2 & 3, it is quite impossible to ascertain the exact problems of the said computer. Further as per the submissions of complainant and the counter versions of the O.P. No. 1, it is well proved that the problems occurred soon after its purchase, as such it did not render the service for which it was purchased even after it had been repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the service engineer of the O.P. No. 2, which seems that the alleged computer was having some inherent problems and as such it may be presumed that lying the said computer as unused for years, the problems could not be rectified and in that regard, replacement is the only solution to meet the ends of justice, as the alleged computer is under warranty period. Further inspite of several opportunities and adjournments given to the O.Ps No. 2 & 3 keeping in view of natural justice, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 neither choose to appear before this Fora nor participate in the present proceeding, as such, we lost opportunities to ascertain about the exact problems occurred in the alleged computer. Had the O.Ps appear and submit their versions before us, then it could have ascertained that whether the alleged computer was having any manufacturing defect or not, hence such absence of the O.P. No. 2 & 3 in the present proceeding makes the allegations and submissions of the complainant strong and vital. In the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, Hon?ble National Commission has held that ??Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted?. From the above discussions, it is well proved that there is clear case of inherent defect in the alleged computer purchased by the computer, which makes the complainant entitle for replacement with a new defect free computer. And not providing the better service to their valuable customer, the O.Ps No.2 & 3 have proved deficiency in service on their part, for which, the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses, as such, we feel, he deserves some compensation and costs and in our view Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the end of justice. Hence this order. ORDER Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.Ps No. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace the alleged computer with a new defect free computer. Also the O.Ps 2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest per annum from the date of Judgement. No order against the O.P. No. 1. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of January, 2018. Issue free copy to the parties concerned. [HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Choudury] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sabita Samantray] MEMBER