Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 21.02.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to replace the said lap top with another piece of same description or to refund the full price of the said lap top paid at the time of purchase along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a new Lenovo lap top from opposite party no. 2 on 09.12.2009 for his personal use vide annexure – 1. At the time of purchase of aforesaid lap top address, phone number, of the service center was not disclosed by the manager and staff of Nalanda Enterprises Pvt. Ltd to the complainant on the pertext that in the event of defect in the lap top, the complainant will be forced to contact opposite party no. 2.
It is further asserted that after some time of purchase some defect developed in the aforesaid lap top then he ( complainant) approached opposite party no. 2 whose engineer technician came and after examining the aforesaid lap top informed the complainant that lap top will automatically adjust and become defect free after some period. Despite this assurance, the defect in the lap top continued and thereafter he again approached opposite party no. 2 whose engineer came and examined the aforesaid lap top and advised to leave the aforesaid lap top with opposite party no. 2 for one week as will appear from annexure – 2. On 23.08.2013 the complainant again visited the opposite party no. 2 for collecting the aforesaid lap top but he was again requested to approach after two days. On 16.08.2013 lastly the lap top was delivered to the complainant without rectifying the defect developed in it. Thereafter the complainant requested the manager of opposite party no. 2 to rectify the defect but he totally ignored the request of the complainant. Opposite party no. 2 also refused to replace the defective lap top with another piece.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed. In written statement opposite party no. 1 has asserted that the complainant has misrepresented the fact while the fact is that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid lap top with one year warranty as per terms and condition mentioned therein which was provided. The aforesaid warranty of the laptop expired on 08.12.2010 but the complainant has approached the dealer after three years and eight months i.e. 16.08.2013 for repair and warranty.
It has been further stated that as per terms the customer has to approach the customer care / technical support of opposite party no. 1 for redressal of grievance where as the complainant has approached opposite party no. 2 who is not authorized for servicing of the lap top.
It has been further stated that the complainant has used the lap top for three years and seven months without any interruption and as such the complainant is eligible for getting his lap top replaced or refund of cost of the lap top with interest.
-
No any written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
It is the statement of the complainant that after purchasing the aforesaid lap top from opposite party no. 2 it become defective and thereafter he visited opposite party no. 2 several times for redressed of his grievance.
It is surprising that neither nature of the defect has been disclosed nor the earliest date of approaching opposite party no. 2 for rectification of his defect has been mentioned.
From annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid lap top was purchased on 08.12.2009 while annexure – 2 discloses the date of 16.08.2013. Thus it appears that the complainant has delivered the lap top to opposite party no. 2 on 16.08.2013 for rectification of defect.
It further transpires from annexure – 2 that the complainant received the lap top without repair on 18.09.2013. Opposite party no. 1 has asserted that on the lap top one year warranty was extended while the complainant has approached opposite party no. 2 on 16.08.2013 i.e. after three years and eight months delay. There is no any document to show that the complainant approached the opposite parties within one year of the purchase i.e. during warranty period. Assuming that there may warranty on some part for three year but no any document has been filed in support at the aforesaid fact by the complainant.
It goes without saying that opposite party no. 2 had no right to repair the lap top.
The complainant has further stated that the opposite party no. 2 had not disclosed the address of service center of opposite party no. 1 at the time of purchase of lap top. This sounds very impractical because service center of all the company including opposite party no. 1 can be easily found through internet.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
