The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the INFOTECH SOLUTIONS, O.T Road, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the ASUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VERNA, GOA and O.P No.3 is the ASUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Andheri West, Mumbai.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a minor girl, who is represented through her father guardian, has purchased ASUS branded laptop model No.S551L on 12.02.2016 for Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty three thousand) only from O.P No.1, which was defective and has several issues from the day one of purchase and was repaired more than five times within ten months on 14.02.2016- RMA-INBE620017, 16.06.2016- RMA-INBE650086, 30.06.2016- RMA- INBE660059, 16.09.2016- RMA-INBE690005, 02.01.2017- INF66C0594. So, the laptop was replaced with a new one by the O.P, which is also defective and old manufactured dated March 2014 and it has also several issues like it hangs while working, touch display is defective, battery back-up issue and this model laptop came with OS Win 8.1 64 and free upgradable to Win 10 64. But, after update to Win 10, there is issue in graphics, for which the Complainant suffered from financial loss. The Complainant submitted that the O.Ps said that the laptop is out of warranty and warranty approval needed, whereas the laptop comes with twelve months warranty. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of the laptop with warranty and compensation.

                    3. Though O.P No.1 has appeared through his Advocates, but he has not filed his W/V in this case. The O.P No.1 is set ex-parte. Neither the O.P No.1 nor his Advocates was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 & 3 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. They have further submitted that the ASUS branded products of O.P No.3 comes with 1 year warranty and the O.P No.3-Company has an efficient complaint redressal department and Customer care centre with Toll Free Numbers for redressing Customer complaints.  They have further submitted that it was found from the database of Customer Service Center that the Complainant has lodged complaints on several issues of the laptop on dtd.31.05.2016, 22.06.2016, 27.12.2016, 01.02.2017, 07.02.2017, which has been redressed and closed on dtd.16.06.2016, 30.06.2016, 02.01.2017, 02.02.2017 and 10.02.2017 respectively and also thereafter, the O.P No.3 provided replacement of the laptop to the Complainant. But, the Complainant again complained that the replaced laptop is old manufactured on March, 2014 and is also defective, which is ambiguous and unsustainable in the opinion of the O.Ps No.2 and 3. The Complainant further demanded for another replacement of the product as the laptop was hanging while working, which is entirely a software issue and it requires intervention by the service center for any up-gradation if any. In case of any upgrades, the Customer should have checked the laptop was compatible for the upgrade and should not have upgraded without confirming the same with the service center. Further, the O.Ps No.2 and 3 have submitted that the Complainant whenever lodged any complaint, the same has been rectified by them and they have already replaced the complained product once. So, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the case of the Complainant should be dismissed with cost.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged laptop, when it was defective even after several repairs by the O.Ps, it was replaced by a new laptop of same type, which was manufactured on 2014. The laptop which was originally purchased does not disclose about the year of manufactured. However, the new laptop i.e. the replaced laptop is also a defective one. When the O.Ps did not repair or replace the same, the Complainant has come to this Forum praying for replacement of the laptop with warranty and compensation. On the other hand, the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and did not take part in hearing of this case. It has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.2 and 3 that the defective laptop was replaced after several repairs by them, but the Complainant complained that the same is defective one and it was also repaired by the O.Ps. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the case record, we found that it is the duty of the O.Ps to replace the laptop with a new one of same type. The O.Ps are silent regarding date and year of manufacturer of the first laptop. So, when the O.Ps have knowledge about it and they are silent, it shows that the O.Ps did not come to this Forum in clean hands and the Complainant has right to avail a defect free laptop when he has paid the price for it. So, according to settled principle of law, the Complainant is entitled for replacement of the goods with a new goods of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, he is entitled for price of the goods paid by him from the O.Ps and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for the same as mentioned earlier along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for replacement of the said laptop with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, they are also jointly or severally liable for return of the price of the said laptop of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty three thousand) only paid by the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.Ps No.2 and 3 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to replace the said laptop with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect or in the alternative, they should return the price of the said laptop of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty three thousand) only paid by the Complainant  along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 8th day of May, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.