This case is filed by the complainant against opposite parties under 12 of Consumer Protection Act for their deficiency of service. The case of complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a computer on 05/03/2009 Computer Sales Service & Digital Images, M.B. Road, Nagaon bearing No.CQ 40-133TU S/No.CND 442 CGS from opposite party No.4/Vinayaka Multisolution. Nagaon who carries business under the manufacturer and dealer and price of Computer Rs.29,500/- (Twenty Nine thousand Five hundred) only also paid. After purchasing, he found that Laptop was not working properly. As per advise of opposite party No.4, the said Laptop was given to the Service Centre of opposite party No.1 (Service Centre) where after examination the screen of the Laptop was changed. But again it was found to be defective and opposite party No.1, first changed the adaptor, again changed the screen. Then again Mother Board, Hard Disk and Adaptor also changed. Thus within a year, opposite party changed the  part of Laptop for several times but failed to bring back to its original position for giving proper service. Complainant has to suffer lot of trouble as because he has to go to Guwahati several times. He had also suffered professionally and physically. It is stated that opposite party No.2 is reputed company having business all over India for which complainant purchased the Laptop at Nagaon through his dealer. As the Laptop was found to be defective and after giving several times for correcting the said defects opposite party failed to cure the defect, complainant has to file this case in this forum for deficiency of service of opposite party with the prayer to be directed opposite party to return the price of Laptop with compensation and cost of proceeding.

Opposite party No.2 contested the case by filing written version. Opposite party admitted that opposite party No.2 is a company of manufacturer of HP branded computers and allied products and opposite party No.1 is the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.2 but opposite No.3 & 4 are not an authorized dealer/authorized support service provider of HP branded computers and printers manufactured by opposite party No.1 and there is no privity of contract between the opposite party No.2 on one hand and opposite party No.3 & 4 to the complainant in its independent capacity. Further opposite party No.2 had responded by replacing the necessary parts to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter system was working fine. This opposite party has denied that there is any manufacturing defects of the Laptop for which this opposite party is not responsible. This case is filed by the complainant without any reason and liable to dismissed.

Opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit as evidence. Other opposite parties have not filed any written statement separately. Opposite party No.2 has also submitted questionnaire and complainant has also submitted reply of questionnaire through an affidavit. Complainant has also filed an affidavit as examination in chief. We have heard argument from both sides of learned counsels and perused the all relevant papers.

From the evidence it appears that complainant had purchased a computer on 05/03/2009 bearing No.CQ 40-133TU S/No.CND 442 CGS from Vinayaka Multisolution Computer Sales Service & Digital Images, M.B. Road, Nagaon who carries on business under the manufacturer and dealer and price of computer Rs.29,500/- (Twenty Nine thousand Five hundred) only also paid. After purchasing he found that Laptop was not working properly. As per advise of opposite party No.4, the said Laptop was given to the service centre of opposite party No.1 (Service Centre) where after examination the screen of the Laptop was changed. But again, it was found to be defective and opposite party No.1 , first changed the adaptor, again changed the screen. Then again Mother Board, Hard Disk and Adaptor also changed. Thus within a year opposite party changed the part of Laptop for several times but failed to bring back to its original position of giving for proper service. Complainant has to suffer lot of trouble as because he has to go to Guwahati several times and professionally and physically.

Exhibit.1 – Cash Memo amount of Rs.29,500/- (Twenty Nine thousand Five hundred) only for purchasing Laptop bearing No.CQ 40-133TU S/No.CND 442 CGS from opposite party No.4/Vinayaka Multisolution.

Exhibit.2- Warranty Card of HP Company.

Exhibit.3 – Service Centre Report regarding replacement of the part.  

Exhibit.4 – Service Centre Report regarding replacement of the part.   

Exhibit.5 – Service Centre Report regarding replacement of the part.    

From the above evidence and exhibited documents, it appears that complainant, after purchasing the Laptop could not work properly due to defect arise out of the said computer for which he complained before the dealer and the Laptop was sent to service Centre/opposite party No.1 for repairing. It was repaired several times by replacing screen , mouse pad and adaptor etc. but defect of Laptop could not be made functionable. The defects of the Laptop was brought into notice of opposite party No.2,3 & 4 but they have not given any importance to the complaint. Finally, he requested opposite party to replace the Laptop with a new Laptop but the refused to replace. In this case the vital plea raised by the opposite party is that opposite party No.3 & 4 are not authorize dealer and support service provider of HP branded computers and printers manufactured by opposite party No.1 and there is no privity contract between opposite party No.2 on one hand and opposite party No.3 & 4 on the other hand for which opposite party No.2 is not responsible. In reply to quaternary 3, Complainant has stated that opposite party No.3 & 4 did not provide any documents to prove that they are not authorize dealer under the manufacturer opposite party No.2, Counsel of opposite party also in the argument has also raised the same plea. But Warranty and Cash memo also issued by opposite party No.4. In Exhibit No.2 in the warranty card, it was clearly mentioned about replacement. Complainant has also answered all the questionnaires submitted by the opposite party. Learned counsel of opposite party although submitted that he did not get opportunity to cross examine the witness but in this connection learned counsel of complainant has referred a case law decided by National Commission i.e. Revision Petition No.518/2002 and submitted that cross examination of witness or a party before a forum under Consumer Protection Act is not a rule. Due to defective supply a Laptop, complainant failed to work his official work properly and he also financially suffered as because he had to go to Guwahati several times. Opposite party although raised the plea about that opposite party No.3 and 4 are not the authorize dealer, in this connection, no cogent evidence is available. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 had already provided service during the period of warranty by replacing the different parts of the Laptop, when after repairing and replacing the parts of the Laptop, the defects could not be cured, it is the duty of the opposite party to replace the same as per terms and conditions of the warranty Exhibit No.2. It has been mentioned in Exhibit No.2 that Compaq that is at least equivalent in hardware performance to Compaq product. When the Laptop of complainant, did not function after repairing and replacing it’s parts and opposite party also failed to replace the same during warranty period, we find and hold that there is deficiency of service of opposite party.

In view of the reason discussed above, we have inclined to allow the prayer of complainant. As such prayer for complainant is allowed. Opposite parties are directed either to replace the Laptop Compaq CQ 40 with new one or the prices of Laptop amount of Rs.29,500/- (Twenty Nine thousand Five hundred) only. Further, compensation amount Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) only and cost of proceeding 5000/- (Five thousand) only also allowed. All the opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation and cost of proceeding. Opposite party are directed to pay the same within 60 days from the date of order. This case is disposed accordingly. Inform to opposite party.