- Sri Manabendra Karmakar,
134, Nandan Kanan, Rahara,
P.S. Kharda, Kolkata-700118._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s. TOSHIBA
10/2, Hungerford Street,
P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-17.
- M/s. Computer Gallery, a unit of
Hi Micro Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
1, Chandni Chowk Street,
Kolkata-72, P.S. Hare Streetand
22, C.R. Avenue,
P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-72. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 17 Dated 21/03/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased laptop from o.p. no.2 on 8.10.13 at a cost of Rs.21,500/-. The said laptop being model no.C50A-P0010 and serial no.5D163310S. Complainant purchased the said laptop together with accessories like charger, laptop bag, mouse SVB Optical and Head Set with Microphone Odyssey. A photocopy of the said invoice dt.8.10.13 has been annexed by complainant with the complaint petition as annex-A. Complainant further stated that the said laptop was under warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase and battery bears the warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase. A copy of the said warranty document has been annexed by complainant with the complaint petition as annex-B.
Complainant further stated that some of the DVDs are not running with the DVD rider attached with the said laptop. However, the same DVDs are running with other laptop. Complainant further stated that he went to o.p. no.2 on the very next day i.e. on 9.10.13 to bring their notice about the said fault of the DVD prayer of the said laptop. O.p. no.2 immediately checked the laptop and in order to ascertain itself asked the complainant for the said DVD and found the same was not working in the aforesaid laptop. However, the said DVD was working in another laptop. Complainant further stated that o.p. no.2 this established the fact that the DVD prayer attached with the said laptop was defective and the same was also admitted by o.p. no.2.
Complainant further stated that however, when the complainant demanded for replacement of the said laptop, o.p. no.2 hesitated to replaced the same and told the complainant to bring it to the notice of authorized service centre of o.p. no.1 situated at 109, CIT Road, Kolkata. Complainant further stated that complainant had brought the said laptop to o.p. no.2 with inherent defect of DVD prayer of the very next date of purchase, but complainant was refused of such replacement by o.p. no.2.
Complainant further stated that when he arrived at the authorized service centre of o.p. no.2 as stated above for registering the defect in the said laptop complainant was refused to attain which is reflected in the register of o.p. no.1 where the complainant has recorded and signed. Complainant further stated that he had also lodged complainant over telephone on 12.10.13 to the Customer Care Help Line of o.ps. for replacement of the said laptop, but all in vain.
Complainant further stated that on 15.10.13 one Mr. Dhananjay Singh came at the address of complainant and inspected the said laptop. After inspecting the same he found that DVD rider was not working properly. Complainant further stated that on 18.10.13 two other persons of o.p. no.1 came with a new DVD rider but the same did not get fixed at the DVD port since the same was indifferent size. In this context, a copy of the service report has been annexed by complainant with the complaint petition as annex-C. After a great deal of persuasion ultimately complainant failed to make necessary arrangement to the replace the same with a new one from o.ps. or even he also failed to do the needful by o.ps’. personnel to remove the defect and/or to mend the defect as has been noticed in the said laptop and he found no other alternative but to file the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
In spite of receipt of notices o.ps. did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has been proceeded ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submission of complainant along since matter has been proceeded ex parte, this Forum holds that the documents as filed by complainant remained unchallenged testimony. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the said laptop with accessories on 8.10.13 from o.p. no.1 at a price of Rs.21,500/- as it appears from annex-A of the complaint petition. This Forum also observed that complainant has annexed the relevant warranty document with the complaint petition as annex-B. Besides, it is crystal clear from annex-C of the complaint petition i.e. serviced report that the technical staff of o.ps. has observed under the head Action Taken that “found problem with ODD”. It is also observed under the head Customer Feedback of the same service report that the competent authority of o.ps. while inspected the laptop observed that “This problem is inherent”. From the above observations as appears from the service report issued by o.ps. that they have themselves admitted that the laptop had problem with ODD and this problem is inherent i.e. in other word the problem arises from manufacturing defect. Even then in spite of great deal of persuasion o.ps. have not replaced the same nor mend the defect. So purchasing of the laptop with accessories in question by complainant from o.ps. has been frustrated. Beside this, it also appears from annex-A of the complaint petition i.e. tax invoice that they have the provision for replacement since it has been written at the bottom of the said annexure that “Replacement time is from 1 A.M. to 2 P.M. Monday to Friday from Regd. Office”. Hence, this Forum observed that even if the provision of replacement is there especially when the representative of o.ps. has observed as it is evident from the annex-C of the complaint petition i.e. service report that the laptop in question is bearing inherent problem. Even though o.ps. neglected to replace the defective laptop which has been purchased by complainant with inherent problem and as such, it is crystal clear that o.ps. have made deficiency of service being service providers to the consumer / complainant and accordingly complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.21,500/- (Rupees twenty one thousand five hundred) only to the complainant towards the cost for the purchasing the laptop in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is also directed to return the said laptop with all accessories to the o.ps. at the time of receiving the decretal amount.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
