Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/186/2010

Ms. Sukhmani Bhore - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Fore Solutions Pvt.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 186 of 2010
1. Ms. Sukhmani BhoreR/o House No. 5823(B) Sector-38 West Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Fore Solutions Pvt.ltd.SCO 319 Second Floor Sector-40/D Chandigarh2. M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.First Floor Badshapur Road, sector-49 Sohana Road, Gurgaon ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 18 Nov 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

                    

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a 2GB memory laptop (manufactured by OP-2), which was upgraded to 3GB, vide invoice dated 9.1.2008 for a total sum of Rs.33,500/- from OP-1 and the same was having warranty of one year.  The laptop was having some problem since its beginning and in January 2010 its hard disk got defective for which she gave the laptop at the service center of the OPs on 11.1.2010 for replacement of the same.  However, even in spite of replacement of the hard disk, the laptop did not work properly.  On 16.2.2010 she again took the laptop to the service  center of OP-1 and when she went on 17.2.2010 to enquire about her laptop, she was told that the motherboard of her laptop was damaged and required replacement for which she was asked to deposit Rs.9,500/-, though there was no such problem when she handed over the laptop to them and the problem occurred only due to mishandling by them.  Being aggrieved, she sent a legal notice dated 18.2.2010  but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted the laptop in question was purchased from them vide invoice dated 9.1.2009.  It has been submitted that the laptop was brought to them on 22.12.2009 on which date it was diagnosed that the hard disk needed to be replaced, which was ultimately replaced on 11.1.2010 and the laptop was returned to the complainant to her satisfaction.  It has been stated that she again brought the laptop to them on 16.2.2010 with some problem and upon diagnosis it was found that the motherboard got damaged and as the same was out of warranty, therefore, she was told that the same would be replaced on chargeable basis. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their separate written reply OP-2 also took similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their written reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             The main contention of the complainant is that the above said laptop was having some problem since its beginning and in January 2010 its hard disk was replaced by the OPs but inspite of replacement of the hard disk, the laptop did not work properly and on 16.2.2010 when she again took the laptop to the service  center of OP-1, she was told that the motherboard of her laptop was damaged and required replacement for which she was asked to deposit Rs.9,500/-, though there was no such problem when she handed over the laptop to them and the problem occurred only due to mishandling by them. 

7.             On the other hand the OPs contended that the laptop was brought to them on 22.12.2009 on which date it was diagnosed that the hard disk needed to be replaced, which was ultimately replaced on 11.1.2010 and the laptop was returned to the complainant to her satisfaction.  It has been stated that she again brought the laptop to them on 16.2.2010 with some problem and upon diagnosis it was found that the motherboard got damaged and as the same was out of warranty, therefore, she was told that the same would be replaced on chargeable basis.

8.             We have gone through the records very carefully to find as to whether the complaint of the complainant, if any, with regard to the said laptop was duly attended by the OPs within the warranty period or not. Perusal of the record shows that the laptop was purchased by the complainant on 9.01.2009 vide Annexure A-1, which worked properly till 22.12.2009, on the date when the defect of hard disk was detected by the OPs and the same was replaced by them free-of-cost on 11.01.2010, vide packing slip cum delivery challan Annexure A-2, being under the warranty period as admittedly its defect was detected by the OPs on 22.12.2009.  Thereafter, no complaint with regard to the hard disk which was replaced on 11.01.2010  was ever lodged/reported by the complainant to the OPs. The laptop was again landed to the workshop on 16.02.2010 vide Annexure A-3 with a defect in the motherboard, as is admitted by the complainant in his complaint for which Rs.9,500/- was demanded by the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that on 16.02.2010, the laptop was not covered under the warranty and therefore, in our view, if any defect had occurred in laptop when it is not under the warranty coverage, it was the responsibility of the complainant to get it rectified by paying from its own pocket and as per the warranty terms and conditions, the OPs were not liable to repair it free-of-cost.

9.             In the present case, it is evident from the records placed on file that after the purchase of the laptop, it worked properly for about 11 months and when the defect of hard disk occurred during the warranty period, it was replaced free-of-cost by the OPs being under the warranty.  The complainant has not been able to prove, if any defect with respect to the motherboard had ever occurred during the warranty period, therefore, she cannot claim any free repair of the same when the laptop is not under the warranty coverage and also no defect with regard to the motherboard of the laptop was ever reported before, during the warranty period.  Therefore, in our view, the OPs have rightly demanded Rs.9,500/- for replacement of the defective motherboard being not under the warranty period and have acted as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and for that act they cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                       Sd/-                                 Sd/-

18th Nov., 2010

[Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota]

 

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

Rg

Member

 

Presiding Member


DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER ,