JUDGEMENT

The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Palash Sarkar of Vill. Gazole, Dist.– Malda u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 92/2015.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant on 17/02/2015 purchased one Laptop from the O.P. No.1 but at the time of operation of the laptop some manufacturing defects were found such as pen drive, modem and any other external device and other defects and it also noticed that there was two cracking lights in the display frame and also noticed when the laptop is going to be charged the whole body of the laptop is being shot.

On 21/02/2015 the complainant lodged a complaint to the O.P. No.1 by stating the above defects. At that time two technician of the showroom stated to the complainant that the laptop could not be changed whereas it has been mentioned that if there is any defect the laptop is replaceable within 45 days. But in spite of several requests the O.P. No.1 did not replace the laptop and the O.P. No.1 gave a phone number to connect the Customer Care Technical Assistants. But the employees of the company informed that the warranty period has been expired as such it is not possible to redress the grievances of the complainant for which the complainant has filed a case before the Consumer Forum along with a prayer for replacement of laptop in default the valuation amount of laptop as well as compensation.

The petition has been contested by the O.P.No.1 IECT, Malda Del Exclusive Showroom by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. No.1 contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of parties.

The definite defense case of the O.P. No.1 is that Del Exclusive Showroom is a pure retail sales counter of Dell consumer goods. The further defense case is that the O.P. No.1 is not a manufacturer. The O.P. No.1 has the authority to sale. Except sale the O.P. No.1 has no authority either to change any part of the computer or replacement of any laptop. The right to rectify any defect is to be borne by the Company who is the manufacturer. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed against  O.P. No.1.

The O.P. No.3 Del India Pvt. Ltd. has contested the case by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against O.P. No.2 contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of any service on behalf of O.P. No.3. The further defense case is that the O.P. No.3 on various occasions requested the complainant to deposit the laptop at the authorized centre so that the technical issue alleged by the complainant may be resolved. The further defense case is that the complainant again and again on several requests of the O.P. -3 refused to deposit the said laptop at the authorized service centre and failed to respond to the numerous Emails and phone calls made on behalf of O.P. No.3. The further defense case is that according to the warranty policy of O.P. No.3 he proves only for replacement of the product in the case of manufacturing defect but for the instant case there was no diagnosis as the petitioner refused to deposit the said laptop at an authorized centre and demanding for a one side replacement of the product. The further defense case is that the complainant always demanded replacement of a new laptop without lating the engineers of O.P. No.3 to inspect the said laptop to diagnose the technical issues and also refused to deposit the said laptop at the authorized service centre. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W-1 and cross-examined. On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of the O.Ps

Now the point for consideration: Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?         

:: DECISION WITH REASONS::

          At the time of argument the complainant personally argued that there was a defect in the laptop for which he came to the O.P. No.1 i.e. IECT Malda for removing the defects. According to the argument as advanced by the complainant is that the employee of the showroom of IECT informed the complainant that the O.P. No.1 is the seller of the laptop and O.P. No.1 is not a manufacturer. So if there is any defect that can be cured or removed by the manufacturer. A phone number was given to the customer care centre of the O.P. No.3. The complainant contacted the O.P. No.3. But ultimately, the defect of the laptop has not been removed. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. No.1 submitted that actually there was no defect in the laptop. If there be any defect the O.P. No.3, Dell India Pvt. Ltd. requested several times the complainant to deposit the laptop to the Service Centre. But the complainant did not deposit the laptop to the Service Centre so there was no fault either on the part of O.P. No.1 or O.P. No.3. The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. No.1 argued that the O.P. No.1 has no technical assistants he is only a seller of the product. If there is any defect noticed by the complainant after purchase of the laptop he should contact the Dell India Pvt. Ltd. and the employee of the O.P. No.1 supplied the phone number and the complainant contacted the O.P. No.3, Dell India Pvt. Ltd. In response to the request of the O.P. No.3 on several times the complainant did not deposit the laptop, if the laptop is not handed over to the Company how the Company engineers will examine the laptop. So the Company did not get the opportunity to verify the laptop. Moreover, in cross-examination P.W.-1 has admitted that “I did not offer any engineer to verify my laptop.” Unless and until the complainant gives an opportunity to verify the laptop by the engineer how this Forum can come to a conclusion that there was a defect in the laptop. Moreover, the laptop since 2015 is lying with the complainant. The complainant did not file any petition to this Forum by depositing the laptop to verify that there was any defect in the laptop by any expert of the engineer. So there were latches on the part of the complainant.

So on considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the complainant has not come to this Forum with a clean hand and also he has not been able to prove this case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

                                        C.F. paid is correct.                                         

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost. However, for the ends of justice and for the interest of the customer the complainant has the liberty to deposit the laptop to the O.P. No.2, Dell India Pvt. Ltd. (through Customer Care Centre of O.P. No.2) to detect the problem of the Laptop by an expert engineer and also to resolve the same within 30 days from the date of order. The O.P. No.2 is directed to receive the same laptop if deposited by the complainant within the time as specified.   

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.