Orissa

Rayagada

CC/10/2017

Sri Adity Kumar Pani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sun Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  10 / 2017.                                       Date. 19    . 6 . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,.                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya Mishra,                            Member

Sri    Aditya   Kumar Pani,   S/O:  Sri Rabindra  Kumar Pani,  OMP  Road, Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Manager,  M/S. Sun Computers, New Colony, Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The Manager,  Lenovo   India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundi  Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R. Puram Habli, Bangalore, 560037, Karnataka(India).                                                                                 .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P  No.1:- Set Exparte.

For the O.P.No.2:- Sri Ram Prasad Patra, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

                                        J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of  the sale price a sum  Rs.42,200/- towards the defective  Lenovo Note book set. 

On being noticed  the O.P No.1    neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  07 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing lapses of around 1 Year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1 is  against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1  was   set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

On being noticed the O.P. No. 2  filed  written version through their learned counsel   refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No .2 taking one and other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.2. Hence the O.P No.  2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P No.2  appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the     O.P No.2  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                           

         FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a  Lenovo Not book U41-70  inter alia Sl. No.R90HW96G  Model No. 80 JV from the O.P. No.1    by paying a sum of Rs. 42,200/-  with Retail Invoice  bill No. 2560 Dt.23.2.2016   with  one year warranty. (Copies of the  bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). But unfortunately after  five   months  of its purchase  the above  set found defective and not functioning on i.e. such as problem  like hanging, plot plastic support is poor to the screen, long LA booting time and poor service solutions  and not  functioning with  other problems. The complainant complained the O.P  No.1 dealer  for rectification of the above set, but no response was  received from the O.P. No.1.  Hence this C.C. case.

            The  O.P.  No.2 in their written version  para No. 4 clearly mentioned that the complainant has visited the O.P. No.1 instead of the authorised service centre of the O.P. No.2.

The  O.P.  No.2 in their written version  para No. 6 clearly mentioned that the complainant  should have checked for the availability of the nearest service centre.  A list of availability of the service  centre providers are mentioned on the website http:support.Lenovo.com/service provider.  The complainant  had never taken any effort to visit the authorised service centre of the O.P. No.2 and hence    there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.2.

The  O.P.  No.2 in their written version  para No. 8 clearly mentioned that without proving damage, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount  as compensation or cost.  There is no evidence that the complainant  had suffered any loss.  Compensation can  be granted only in terms of Section  14(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Clause (d) contemplates award of  compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered duet o negligence of the O.P. In the present case there is no material placed on record to show negligence from the part of the O.P. No.2. There is no question of neither  manufacturing defect nor  deficiency in service  from the  O.P. No.2. Here  in the instant case the  complainant has not even  proved the losses suffered by him.

            The  O.P.  No.2 in their written version  para No. 10 clearly mentioned that all   the allegations against   this  O.P.  No.2  are denied.  The complainant is not entitled to  any cost or compensation. However, as a gesture of goodwill and considering its global  repute, the O.P. No.2 is willing to offer complete diagnosis of the machine with one time part replacement (OTPR) on free of cost.

 

On perusal of the record  this forum observed there is no job sheet filed by the  complainant  before the forum during the warranty period.

On perusal of the  complaint petition and written version filed by the parties  this forum agreed with the views taken by the  O.P No.2    in their written version and documents  filed in support of this case.   The present case  in hand as the complainant has not availed  service  from the service centre  within  warranty  period  so he    is not entitled  to  replace or refund of the price of the above set.

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is not entitled  to  replace or refund of the price of the above set. .

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER.

In resultant the  petition filed by the complainant stands allowed in part on contest.  There is  no order as to cost.

            The  O.P. No.2 is directed thoroughly  diagnosis of the above  machine with one time part replacement (OTPR) on free of cost  and allow six months warranty to the above set  for the best interest of justice.  The complainant is further  directed  to contact the nearest service  centre of the Lenova Company  along with this order.

            The  O.P. No.1 is ordered to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 for early compliance.

 

            The O.P. No.2 is ordered to comply the order with in  30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this                19th. day  of       June, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT.