BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 14 of 2018
Sri Prosenjit Nath
Silchar…………………………. ……………………………………….. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Managing Director,
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon Marathalli Outer Ring Road,
Doddenskund Village, Marathalli Post,
Kr. Puram Hobli Banglore-560037……………………..……………. O.P.No.1.
2. Infosys, Central ,
Central Road, Nazirpatty Point
Bela Complex, Silchar-788001…………………………………….. O.P.No.2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Dr. Tajul Haque Choudhury, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Chunilal Bhattacharjee., Advocate for the O.P.No.1
Mr. Sabyasachi Das, Advocate for the O.P.No.2
Date of Evidence 08-10-2018, 02-11-2018,
Date of written argument 04-12-2018, 17-12-2018, 29-12-2018
Date of oral argument 24-04-2019,
Date of judgment 20-05-2019
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath
- Sri Prosenjit Nath brought this case against Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. and authorized dealer of Lenovo Laptop for award of compensation and refund of price of a laptop on the ground of disservice.
- Brief facts:-
The Complainant purchased on 03/11/2017 a Lenovo laptop of 320-15KBSN-PFOV37KH model with Rs.52,000/- from authorized dealer at Silchar vide invoice No.LI/489. Name of the Show-room of authorized dealer is Logic Infosis. The said authorized dealer is arrayed as O.P.No.2. Due to malfunction of the Laptop i.e blurring display, the Complainant lodged complaint No.7008351721 on 07/11/2017 to the executive Director, Services, Lenovo India for replacement of the laptop. But the O.P. neither replaced a new laptop with proper functioning nor solved the problem of the laptop with satisfaction of the Complainant. Hence, brought the instant case for refund of price of the laptop with compensation.
- The O.P.No.1 in the W.S stated inter alia that the Laptop of the Complainant has been checked twice and consulted their technical team after having looked at the attachments. The engineer of the O.P. concluded that there was no issue found with machine and system of the laptop is working as per design. They stated further that the complainant is comparing the display of the machine with other display of the machine in his office with false expectations. The O.P. No.2, in its W/S stated inter alia that the complainant purchased the laptop from her shop on 03/11/2017 but in the middle part of January 2018 the Complainant verbally informed him about problem of the laptop. Accordingly, he advised to inform the matter to the Lenovo Company. However, he further stated that service engineer of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Informed the O.P.No.2 on email dated 18/01/2018 that problem of the Complainants laptop has been solved.
- During hearing, the Complainant submitted his deposition supporting an affidavit and exhibited relevant invoice of purchasing of the laptop vide Ext.1 and also exhibited relevant emails vide Ext.3 to establish the fact that he made correspondence with O.P. regarding issue of blurring display of his laptop and request for replacement of the trouble free laptop of same model. The O.P.No.1 submitted deposition of Mr. Saurav Ganguly and exhibited his authority letter regarding submitting deposition and warranty of the laptop. The O.P.No.2 also submitted his deposition and exhibited emails as Ext.A. After closing evidence all the parties engaged lawyer submitted written argument.
- I have heard oral argument, perused the evidence on record and written argument. In this case it is a fact that the Complainant purchased a laptop on 03.11.2017 form O.P.No.2 and reported the problem of blurring display of that laptop to the O.P.No.1 & 2. Moreover, the Complainant exhibited the invoice to establish the fact that he purchased the Laptop on 03/11/2017 for Rs.52,000/- It is also evident form Ext.3 email and from the deposition of the O.P.No.2 that the Complainant reported the malfunctioning of the laptop i.e blurring display to the O.P.No.2 in the middle of January, 2018 and to the O.P.No.1 through email and requesting to solve the problem and subsequently asked to replaced the laptop as problem of blurring display did not solved. The O.P.No.1 did not agree with the plea of the Complainant rather by deposing wanted to stated that the laptops systems is working as per design of the laptop but never denied the alleged fact for blurring display.
- Hence, on the principle of preponderance of probability of the evidence of the parties I have believed the fact brought by the Complainant regarding blurring display. Hence, I find justification for bringing the instant case against the O.Ps.
- Thus, considering the problem of blurring display as manufacturing defect, the O.P.No.1 is asked to replace the said laptop with a brand new same model trouble free laptop or in alternative refund the price of Rs.52.000/- to the Complainant. In addition, the O.P.No.1 is asked to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for disservice and cost of the proceeding of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. The O.P.No.1 is further directed to satisfy the award within 45 days from today. In default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be added with the price of the laptop and compensation aforesaid.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 20th of May, 2019.
