Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a laptop on 12.9.07 which is manufactured by o.p.no.1 and was sold by o.p. no.2. The consideration of the laptop was Rs.32,000/- which was paid in full by the complainant. It is also not disputed by o.p. no.2 in their written version that the laptop in question was started problem on 9.10.07 i.e. within one month from the date of purchase. This is also pertaining to mention that the laptop was covered by warranty of one year. As per o.p. no.2 they have tried their level best for exchange the defective machine in question with a new one of same model, but complainant wanted to exchange the defective machine with a new one of different model. From the record it is also observed that a letter has been issued by o.p. no.1 to the complainant with assurance to exchange the defective laptop with a new one of same description. From the record (annex-P2 of the petition of complaint) it is observed that the laptop in question was declared as Discontinued Product Model by the manufacturer o.p. no.1, (manufacturer) and for that reason complainant wanted to replace the defective machine which was already actually obsolete model, with a laptop of new model to avoid any future disputes and she is also ready to pay the extra amount for that advanced version of laptop. But for the reason best known to them o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not take any positive action so that complainant would receive his desired laptop by paying extra amount. We find no justification of this action on the part of o.ps. and this action of o.ps. tantamounts to deficiency in rendering service under the purview of the. COPRA, 1986. Moreover, it is also pertaining to mention that Hon’ble National Commission has been already pleased to observe that if any goods suffers from manufacturing defect within six months from purchasing then the manufacturer and the seller are jointly and/or severally liable to replace the same or refund the price of the “goods” in question to the complainant. O.p. no.1 has raised a point that as they are dealer and/or seller of the goods in question they have no responsible for the suffering of the complainant as mentioned above. But we are of the opinion that being dealer o.p. no.2 should not shirk off the responsibility for supplying the defective goods to the consumer / complainant.  This is also pertinent to mention that Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to express the same view in this regard.

            Therefore, considering four corners of the instant case we are of the opinion that both the o.ps. are jointly and/or severally liable for supplying defective goods to the complainant and also liable for harassing the complainant by depriving her from a laptop which is not of obsolete model, whereas complainant is ready to pay balance amount for the advance version of the laptop. For this action of o.ps., complainant has to face harassment and mental agony and she is eligible to be compensated by both the o.ps. and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.1. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand) only and to pay compensation of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. o.p. no.1should pay Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) only per day and o.p. no.2 should pay Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day out of which 50% of this amount is payable to the complain ant and rest 50% is payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund till the date of full and final realization.

            Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non-execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.