Delhi

North East

CC/442/2022

Mr. Jayant Lunawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Avita Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.442/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Jayant Lunawat R/o E 816 Lohia St. No. 3, BabarpurShahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Avita Technologies 211-8-211C, 2nd Floor, Regus Elegance Tower, JasolaVihar, New Delhi-110025	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

13.12.22 21.12.23                                      12.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 12.12.21, the Complainant purchased laptop AVITA PURA A-6-8 GB-256 SSD from Navcom Technologies for Rs. 25,250/- vide invoice no. 2059 with warranty of 2 years repair and 7 days replacement. It is stated that Complainant called the brand customer care for the faulty working of the said product within the replacement time but Opposite Party told Complainant to wait for sometime and the problem will be solved. The Complainant had again registered complaint on 25.12.22 for the problem in said laptop but the problem was not resolved. It is stated that Complainant registered complaint 9-10 times and each time Opposite Party changed one of the parts of said laptop but not tried to resolve the problem and in its last conversation on 27 April Opposite Party replied through email that they will change touch pad drive and bios, and also promised Complainant to increase the warranty of said laptopfor 6 months after registration but does not fulfil his both promises. Thereafter Opposite Party stopped answering the Complainant query and did not answer his calls and emails. The Complainant stated that he is not able to use the laptop even for single day and also register complaint case on National Consumer Helplinedocket no. 3960482 but Opposite Party did not reply anything there also. Hence, this showsdeficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the cost of the laptop of Rs. 25,250/- along with 18 % interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards physical as well as mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of the petition.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.03.23.

 

 

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file.
5. The case of the complainant is that the Complainant purchased one laptop for Rs. 25,250/- vide invoice no. 2059 with warranty of2 years repair and 7 days replacement. The complainant lodged the complaint for faulty laptop with the Opposite Party but the complaint was not resolved.Opposite Party sent an email on 27.4.2022, Opposite Party replied through email that they will change touch pad drive and bios, and also promised Complainant to increase the warranty of said laptop for 6 months after registration but does not fulfil his both promises. Complainant stated that he is not able to use the laptop even for single day.
6. On perusal of material on record, we find that laptop was purchased in name of Synthetic Industries and complainant filed the present complaint stating himself as beneficiary. However, the complainant has not produced any evidence to show as to how and in what capacity; the complainant was handed over the laptop in question by the payee company. The complainant has neither filed any authority letter nor any other document to show that he was beneficiary of the said laptop on behalf of Synthetic Industries. Since, the Complainant has failed to prove that he was a consumer under Section 2(7) Consumer protection Act,2019, he is not entitled to any relief under the complaint.
7. Even otherwise, the complainant has not been able to any cogent evidence to prove his allegation that the laptop was faulty and despite several complaints within warranty period, the issue was not resolved. The Complainant has also failed to show any warranty card to show that the product was covered under the warranty.The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the laptop in question was defective except one email dated 27.04.2022 alleging that Opposite Party had promised the complainant to change certain parts of the lap top but did not do so. The said correspondence is not at all conclusive proof of the fact that the laptop was faulty. Moreover, the complainant has not filed affidavit under section 65-Bof Indian Evidence Act to prove the said electronic document.
8. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant not being a consumer cannot be treated as "complainant", hence, not entitled to any relief.Even otherwise, the complainant has failed to prove his case and Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost could not establish deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
9. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this Complaint which is accordingly dismissed without costs.
10. Order announced on 12.04.24.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)			(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)				(President)