-x-

1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased one HP Laptop 15G- 002AX from OP.1 for Rs.35000/- vide Invoice No.AST/RI/802/14-15 dt.28.9.2014.  It is submitted that the laptop is not working in spite of several repairs by Authorized Service Centre of the Company and the OP No.2 was informed number of times to sort out the problems but to no action.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the laptop with a new one or to refund Rs.35, 000/- and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed its reply contending that he intimated the concerns of the complainant to HP Company several times through his email.  He also further contended that he has intimated the facts to ASM, HP Odisha Mr. D. Tarai (ASM) and Sales Officer concerned of the territory, Mr. L. K. Panda, Sales Officer.  Thus denied any fault on its part.

3.                     The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged laptop to the complainant by its dealer.  It is contended that the allegation of deficiency in service and defects in laptop in question without relying any expert opinion is baseless and and the defect noticed in the laptop is not a manufacturing defect.  It is further contended that the reported issues were attended by a service team of the OP and after careful examination of the laptop; it was found that the display was damaged due to mishandling.  The representative of OP.2 had informed the complainant that the defect developed in the display is caused due to physical damage and the same is not covered under standard warranty terms and had offered to repair the same on chargeable basis which was not accepted to the complainant.  It is also further contended that the complainant is guilty of improper handling of the screen and as per the policy of the Company; the display can not be repaired or replaced after usage.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on their part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The OP.1 though submitted through its counter to furnish some documents but failed to do so.  The OP.2 filed written argument besides some citations.  Heard from the complainant only and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case for malfunctioning of laptop during warranty period, the complainant approached OP.1 for repair who happens to be the dealer- cum-ASC of OP.2 Company.  Due to non repair, the complainant has also intimated the fact to ASM of HP Company.  In support of his above averments, the complainant has filed email copies.

6.                     The OP.1 in his reply dt.05.02.2016 also stated that he has sent email intimating the fact of defects in the laptop to the ASM and Sales Officer of HP Company of this area.  The OP.2 stated in his counter that after receipt of complaint, a team of experts inspected the laptop and found that due to physical damage, the display is not working which is not a manufacturing defect and can not be replaced or repaired under warranty.  The OP.2 further stated that the complainant is to prove through expert evidence that the laptop suffered manufacturing defect during warranty period.  In this connection the OP.2 has relied number of decisions of higher Forums which were minutely perused.

7.                     The OP.2 stated that he has sent a team of experts to examine the laptop but it was found from the record that arrival of experts and examination of laptop is not within the knowledge of the complainant as well as OP.1.  The date of arrival of experts and copy of expert report has not been filed by OP.2 in this case.  The OP.1 in his reply stated that he has contacted ASM and Sales Officer of the Company for resolution of problems in the laptop.  The complainant in his complaint also stated that no reply has been received from the OP.2 till date.  In view of above above facts, inspection of laptop by experts of OP.2 is doubtful.  Further the OP.2 stated that the complainant needs to produce the expert opinion that the laptop suffers from manufacturing defect.  In our opinion, the OP.1 being the Authorized Service Centre of the Company can be treated as expert.  When the OP.1 intimated the fact to different officials of OP.2 regarding problems in the laptop, no further expert opinion is required in this case. The OP.1 has failed to file copy of emails sent by him to OP.2 though submitted through his reply dt.05.2.2016 and remained absence in this proceeding from that date.

8.                     Further no job sheet or certificate from service Centre is filed showing that the laptop was brought to the service Centre for physical damage repair.  In the above circumstances, both the Ops utterly failed to prove that the display of the laptop damaged due to physical damage and as such we conclude that during warranty period, the display became defective for which the OP.2 being the manufacturer was required to replace the defective part or repair the same under warranty and non repair of the laptop by OP.2 certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  In our view, prayer for refund of the cost of the laptop or replacement of the same with a new one is not a genuine prayer since the complainant has used the laptop free from defect for 10 months and during August, 2015 he lodged complaint regarding defects noticed in the laptop.  Hence it would be proper to direct the Ops to replace the display of the laptop only with a new one.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favor of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to replace the display of the laptop with a new one and bring the laptop into order and the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)