The complainant ‘s case is that complainant purchased one Laptop from Great Eastern Trading Company, Mahesh, P.S. Serampur, District Hooghly at a price Rs.59,700/- on 8.8.2014.Immediately after purchase some problem cropped up in the working of the Laptop. Op no.1 advised the complainant to report the problem to the Service Centre of Lenovo . The
complainant reported the defects to the Service centre of Lenovo on 9.4.2015. The LCT of the Laptop was becoming hot within 1 and ½ minutes and heat was unbearable. On 17.4.2015 the Engineer of Service Centre replaced the LCD. After that again and again problem cropped up in the smooth functioning of the Laptop . On 27.5.2015 the Engineer of the Service centre made observation that status problem fixed , part replaced , action taken LVDS cable replaced but inspite of that the problem still continues and cannot work properly. Accordingly, the complainant approached the oP no.1 for changing the Laptop on 28.6.2015 but the oP no.1 did not change the same. It is also stated that the problem cropped up within the period of warranty period. The complainant wanted to change the same within the period but the oP no.1 turned a deaf ear to the replace of the complainant. In this way, the complainant suffered much and has been suffering also with the defective Laptop which has been purchased by about Rs.60,000/-. Inspite of that Op no.1 and 2 did not take any attempt for redressal the grievances of the complainant. The complainant is a student of B.Sc and he has been suffering with defective Laptop for negligent of Op no.1 and 2. The Op no.1 also refused to change the Laptop from whom the complainant purchased the Laptop. Hence, this complaint for redressal of the grievances.
In this case Op no.1 appeared and contested the case . Op no.2 did not appear inspite of publication as per order no.10 dated 1.4.2016.
Op no. 1 has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations made by the complainant against the Op . It is stated that the complainant
purchased the computer on 8.8.2014 through Op no.1. On 9.4.2015 the complainant lodged complaint to the Authorise Service Centre and replaced the defective parts as per warrantee terms and condition but the complainant intended to get the Laptop by a new one which is contrary to the warranty terms and conditions . This Op no.1 is an agent or dealer of manufacturer and sell out the goods in question. It is also stated in para 12 that manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant cannot be entertained in any manner whatsoever by the Op as a dealer since the warranty was given by the manufacturer for which this Op no.1 is not liable. Accordingly, it is averment of Op no.1 for dismissal of the case because manufacturer has not been made party.
Op no.2 did not appear inspite of paper publication.
Complainant filed Xerox copy of Tax Invoice issued by Great Eastern Trading Co. Serampur, one Job card and one call report.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant purchased the Lenovo Laptop in question ?
- Whether there was any defect in the Laptop ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service of the oP no.1 and 2 ?
- If the complainant is entitled to get relief as per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
The complainant filed the receipt of Lenovo Laptop with price Rs.59,700/-. The Op no.1 admitted this. So the complainant has purchased the Lenovo Laptop as such complainant is bona fide purchaser of the Laptop so he is a consumer u/s 2(d)(i) of C.P.Act, 1986.
Point no.2
The complainant alleges that there was defect of heating . Complainant has filed one service report which shows the problem reported is LHUSB PORT Cbecic , name of the Engineer, Arijit Das, Action taken – LCD module replaced, Cbecic and verified by user dated 17.4.2015. Further this Laptop was inspected by Engineer , Arijit Das and he made observation therein. So these papers abundantly shows that there was defect in the Laptop and that was informed within the warrantee period. So there is defect in the Laptop which is proved. This point goes for the complainant.
Point no.3
It is crystal clear that the complainant purchased the Laptop from Op no.1 by adequate consideration money. That Laptop was not functioning properly after some months . The complainant approached to Op no.1 . It was the duty of the oP no.1 to take steps to give remedy to the complainant . It should be borne in mind that Opno.1 is a dealer under the manufacturer Opno.2 . Complainant has purchased the Laptop from Op no.1 . Accordingly, Op
no. 1 has some duty towards the purchaser/consumer i.e. to supply complainant the material of good quality with market price. The records shows , the Op no.1 shifted its duty to the Service centre wherein the Engineer , Arijit Das gave first hand aid to the complainant and that to for temporary. The reports of the Arijit Das shows that , that Laptop was defective but Op no.1 remained silence keeping his figure towards Op no.2. But oP no.1 is a dealer under Op no.2. Op no.1 cannot get rid of his liability to provide the complainant with a good quality and defectless machine . OP no.1 did not take any step to make communication with OP no.2 not has taken deposit of the Laptop nor has taken any correspondence with Op no.2. Such conduct of Op no.1 obviously is full of deficiency in service and negligent towards the consumer with whom he deals in the Electronic articles. Such indifference attitude of Op no.1 cannot be appreciated at all rather it proves neglect and deficiency in service towards the complainant and such deficiency in service is in equal quality with Op no.2 who was produced the defective machine and handed over the same to the op no.1.
In this way, the conduct of Op no.1 and Op no.2 will make it clear that they are liable for deficiency in service towards the complainant i.e. the Op no.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service towards complainant.
Point no.4
On the premises above deliberation , we are of opinion that the complainant should be compensated adequately by Op no.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
Thus all the points goes well for the complainant. The complainant‘s case is established by the material in record itself. Complainant is entitled to get relief as per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence –
Ordered
That the CC no. 119 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.1 and 2 are directed to replace the Laptop in dispute by a new one with same model and good condition , alternatively to refund the price of the Laptop i.e. Rs.59,700/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand seven hundred only) to the complainant. The Op no.1 and 2 is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
All the above orders shall be complied by the Op no.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of this order, i.d. 100/- per day would be deposited by the Op no.1 and Op no.2 in the Consumer Welfare Fund till full relaisation is made.
Complainant is also at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
