ORDER                           Dated:  03-11-2016
Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      Complainant has filed this complaint on  15-10-2012 and alleged
that he purchased a laptop from OP3 for Rs. 58,000/- and after two
months  the display of laptop started flickering and trackpad came
out. On 28.08.2015  he made a complaint to OP2 who replied that one
month is required to import the parts for repairs and his laptop would
be repaired earliest by 01.09.2015.  On 24.09.2015, daughter of the
complainant was intimated about the  receipt  of parts and that an
engineer would visit his home  but OP2 failed to repair the said
laptop. Complainant sent various reminders to  OP2 but it failed to
repair the laptop.  Complainant also alleged that technician of OP2
must have broken other parts of the laptop which have not yet been
recognized. Hence complainant filed this complaint with prayer to
direct OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.58,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-
as compensation for harassment.
2.      Due to non appearance of OP1and OP3 ,the matter was proceeded
ex-parte against them on 28.10.2016.
3.      In reply, OP2 admitted that complainant was offered replacement of
the laptop or refund of the full amount of  Rs. 58,000/- (cost of the
laptop) on the return of the old laptop along with the accessories.
OP2 further admitted that it still willing to refund the full amount
towards the cost of the laptop on return of the old laptop purchased
by him.
4.      The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP2 are baseless. In support of his
complaint complainant filed his own affidavit    along with documents
i.e. copy of the purchase bill (Ex. C/1), copy of warranty card (Ex.
C/2) , correspondence exchanged between the parties (Ex. C/3) ,
configuration of the laptop (Ex. C/4) , copy of e-mails (Ex. C/5-1)  ,
copy of service order (Ex.C/5-2), photographs (Ex. C/6) , copy of
email dated 30.10.2015 (Ex. C/7) , copy of service call report
(Ex.C/8).
5.      In support of reply, OP2 filed affidavit of Mr. Samik Sengupta .
Both the parties filed their written arguments.
6.       We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the
parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to
be considered are as under:-
(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?
(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP2?
(c) Relief?
7.  As OP2 did not specifically did not deny the purchase of the
Lenovo Laptop for a price for Rs. 58,000/-  by the complainant and its
bill (Ex.  C/1) filed by the complainant , therefore, admittedly
complainant is a consumer.
8. OP2 in its reply was willing to refund the  amount of Rs. 58,000/-
for replacement of the laptop to the complainant on the return of old
laptop along with the accessories purchased by him which is suffice to
prove that the laptop purchased by the customer was defective.  As
under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  complainant
is entitled only for a reasonable compensation ,therefore, we direct
OP2 as under:-
     1.Refund the amount of Rs. 58,000/- towards the cost of laptop
simultaneously complainant is directed to return old laptop along with
its accessories purchased by him.
2. To pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation towards the inconvience caused
to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.
9.      The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of
order failing which  OP will pay interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of
order.
10.       Copy of the order made available to the parties as per law. File
be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ………………