The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that complainant purchased H.P. Laptop, model no.15N010TX, vide memo. no.CC/211, dated on 25.12.2013 for rupees 37,000/- with warranty for one year from the date of purchase (25.12.2013). The further case of the complainant is that from the date of purchase of the said laptop , the said laptop failed to pursue its quality output to ensure perfection to the level of high ranking quality brand as advised by their goodself, the service of the said Laptop to achieve the same was failed by several repairs and settings by the said company’s service provider which finally ended in a mess.  The complainant also sent written complaint to the Ops but all were in vain. Hence, this complaint.

            The Opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.1 is that the complainant did not make the party the company/H.P. to his complaint application. The Opno.1 also submits that they are not liable to pay any compensation towards mental agony, harassment, tension along with refund of the Laptop cost as claimed by the complainant. Since the suffering of the

complainant was not attributed by the Op and to the complainant  had not filed any supporting documents to substantiate her claim. In fact, it is the complainant who has to pay damages to this OP no.1 for unnecessarily dragging this Ops to litigation keeping the mistake on his side. It is stated that the oP no.1 is not liable to pay anything regarding the alleged Laptop and the oP no.2 is the manufacturer.

       The Op no.2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The Op no.2 submits that he is only service provider. He would provide replacement of exact module upon manufacturer’s guideline and confirmation and subject to availability of spares that too within warranty period. Warranty for Laptop has been provided by manufacturer and not by the service provider. In para 6 Opno.2 stated the Service Engineer of this OP no.2 visited the place of complainant and diagnosed the problem of the Laptop , Revamp the Laptop in good working condition at every instant. In para 7 Opno.2 stated in compliance with the direction of this Forum in the month of March 2015 the oP no.2 sent Engineer on 16.3.2015 and the Laptop was examined and found “the complainant was using multiple browsers to access internet, while being so the system is not responded and intermittently systems hanging on account of the above, even the complainant did not allow to provide service by replacing the

 system board . However, later on 28.5.2015 the complainant allowed Engineer to replace the system board , updated the bios and windows and revamp the Laptop in good condition”. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant is not justifiable as per Law and the same should be dismissed.

            Complainant filed copy of delivery challan dated 25.12.2013 issued by Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Copy of Service Call report, Copy of letter dated 12.11.2014. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument. Op on the other hand filed Evidence in chief, Written version and Written Notes of argument and some other documents.

POINTS FOR DECISION :

1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                        

2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?                                                                                                

3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

   All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the Laptop and used the same about one year . After that complainant was lodged complaint before Opno.2 after using the Laptop five months. It also appears from the Op no.2’s

statement that after getting the order from this Forum the oP no.2 repaired the Laptop and the same was in working condition. But complainant suppressed this fact. Moreover, this Op no.1 and Op no.2 are not the manufacturer . Manufacturer company is other than Op no.1 and 2. This Opno.1 and 2 are only seller and service provider. Hence, they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect if any as per complaint reflected in the vast , laborious records and bunch of papers submitted and placed in the record. Ofcourse it is a mechanical article and defect may arise anytime for mishandling as stated by the oP no.2. Accordingly, after going through the whole crux of this case , reflected in the record we are of opinion that Op no.1 and Op no.2 are not anyway responsible for any defect , which was hidden in the instrument , if any , at the time of manufacturer. So, the complainant is unable to substantiate her claim. Hence it is-

                                                                        Ordered

            That the CC no. 263 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.