IN THE MATTER OF

Jitendra Yadav,(Asst.Prof.) Institute of Legal Studies & Research,NBH -103 Manglayatan University, Baiswan, Aligarh

                                                         V/s

1. Ferns Icon Level, 2, Outer Ring Rd,( Lenovo Registered Office) Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560037  
2. Faith Computers(Aligarh Dealer) B-9 Bhagwati Palace Samad Road, Aligarh                                                                                  

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for

1. Ops be directed to replace the laptop as guaranteed. 
2. Ops be directed to pay to the compensation Rs. 47500.

2.  The Complainant has stated that he has purchased a laptop idea pack 15 of Lenovo Company for Rs.42500 through invoice dated 6.2.2022 from the op no.2. The laptop stared with a problem of hanging as its manufacturing defect in its software. He made a complaint on 1.10.2022 to op no.2 who instead of replacing it, reset the laptop but problem could not be resolved. On 17.2.2022 complaint was made to op no.2 through customer care and again the laptop was reset by the technical staff of the company but the problem was not solved. On 28.11.2022 again the complaint was made to op no.2 who refused to reset. Finally in the month of February, 2023 request was made for replacement of the laptop but the request was denied. The laptop persists with manufacturing defect and it should have been replaced under the warranty conditions.      
3. Op no.1 stated in WS that complainant had purchased the laptop for Rs.42500 from op no. 2 . Complainant has raised the case on 17.10.2022 and after diagnosing it was reported that the laptop was of slow performance.  However the op had reset the laptop and installed windows but the complainant was not satisfied. Op tried to make contact with the complainant but he was not reachable and then the case was closed. On 28.11.2022 complainant contact the op to rectify the defect of slow functioning. Case was again registered. The technical team diagnosed the machine but no hardware issue was detected. Complainant was informed that the machine was working as per specifications. The Lenovo technical support team has diagnosed the machine and communicated to the complainant about its proper functioning.
4. Op no.2 has not contested the case despite of sufficient service.     
5. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op no.1 has also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
8. It is evident from the record that the laptop manufactured by the op no.1 was sold by the op no.2 to the complainant for Rs.42500. Complainant made complaints to the ops and the technical team of the op inspected laptop. Op no.1 has stated that the technical team diagnosed the machine and communicated to the complainant about its proper functioning. OP has himself stated that the complaint was not satisfied with the functioning of laptop and this supports the complainant plea that the laptop was not working properly. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to replace the laptop by the new laptop of the same model or to pay the cost of the laptop Rs.42500 with pendente lite and future interest 12% per annum.      

9. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.

10.  We hereby direct the ops to replace the laptop in question by the new laptop of the same model within 30 days or to pay the cost of the laptop Rs.42500 with pendente lite and future interest 12% per annum.  Ops shall also pay Rs.15000 as litigation expenses.
11. Op shall comply with the directions within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.