West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/88/2014

Mr. Debanjan Chattopadhyay. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Silajit Biswas. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.88/2014                                                                                                  Date of disposal: 14/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                             MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                             MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

       For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.D. Mandal, Advocate.

       For the Defendant/O.P.S.                         : 

 

 

         Mr. Debanjan Chattopadhyay, S/o-Sri Kalyan Kumar Chattopadhyay, R/o-1B, Akshardham      

 

        Apartment, Jhapetapur, P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..Complainant.

 

Vs.

          

1)Mr. Silajit Biswas, ASP Executive, HCL Service Ltd., Infinity benchmark, 14^th floor, G-1, Block-EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091,

2)Mr. Indramani Singh Pvt. Ltd., 29/1, Kalabagan lane, Howrah-711104,

3)Mr. Dinesh Bijlani, Adams marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, P.O.-Inda, P.S. Kharagpur(T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Ops.

                                                          

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

 

Complainant is present. Today is fixed for exparte hearing. Hd. Ld. Advocate and perused the documents. It appears from the record that the Ops. are avoiding their appearance despite having received the notice in due time. Thus there exists strong reason to believe that the Ops. are willfully avoiding their appearance in this case. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed relevant documents on the point of service of notice. In view of the present circumstances and the material on records there are no options but to hear the case exparte.

Accordingly the case is heard and considered. The case of the Complainant Mr. Debanjan Chottopadhyay purchased a H.C.L. Laptop vide Model No. AEV236-1 on 12/11/2012 from Adams Marketing (P) Ltd.

Contd…………..P/2

 

-( 2 ) -

   That few months after purchase of the said Laptop started showing various problems. The petitioner had been to Adams Kharagpur Branch and made complaint about the problem of the said Laptop which was still in warranty period. That on 23/06/2013 Adams Kharagpur Branch had repaired the said Laptop and returned it to the petitioner. Again after few days the said Laptop started showing problem and the petitioner again went to Adams Kharagpur Branch and lodged a complaint within warranty period. The serviceman of the Adams came to petitioner’s house after one month from the date of received complaint. The serviceman taken the Laptop of the petitioner on 05/12/2013 and introducing himself that he is an engineer of HCL Infosys Ltd. The service man issued a proper receipt at the time of receiving the Laptop.

  That thereafter the petitioner had been to Adams Kharagpur Branch several times to bring back his Laptop but the Ops. each and every time refused to return back the Laptop by showing different reason.

  That the petitioner is a student by profession and he is urgently required his Laptop for his studies but till to date he has not get back his Laptop or any request from the end of Ops.

  That the petitioner had request several times to return his Laptop and the petitioner had mailed HCL several times but no fruitful reply.

  The petitioner sent a Lawyer’s notice on 03/05/2014 but the Ops. did not pay and head to the request of the petitioner although the notice received by the Ops.

  Being aggrieved the complainant has come before us with a prayer for compensation of Rs.1,000,00 due to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. and also prayed for 35,2001 as the loss issued by the petitioner and also prays for cost of Rs.5,000/- of the proceeding.

  In view of the fact, it is crystal clear the Ops. avoids to return back the Laptop in proper condition.

  So, it is a fit case to hold that the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency in service against the Ops.

  In this connection some documents namely

1)One copy of warranty card in the name of Debanjan Chattopadhyay.

2)One copy of booking slip.

3)One copy of customer service report call I.D. 85030/0425.

4)One copy of customer service report call I.D 8503556980.

5)One copy of Tax invoice.

All documents are in Xerox copies.

Hence,

           It is ordered that,

                                      the Complainant case be and the same is allowed exparte. The

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

-( 3 ) -

 

Complainant do get the compensation of  Rs.1,000,00(One Lakh) only due to deficiency in service   payable by the Ops. within 60 days from the date of this order, in default this complainant is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of law in this behalf.

There is no order to litigation cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

            Member                                                           Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.