Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Respondent/complainant purchased one ACER ASPIRE Laptop Model 4920 from opposite party No.5 with one year warranty on 04.12.1997.  The said laptop was purchased by the respondent for personal use in order to earn his livelihood.  It is alleged that after few months of its purchased, problem occurred in the display of the

-2-

Laptop.  Respondent reported the matter to the petitioner and after its repair, the Laptop was returned by the petitioner to the respondent in working condition.  After that, the said problem occurred again and again and the Laptop was repaired and given back to the respondent.  When the problem again arose, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the petitioner.

District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.

The State Commission allowed the appeal by the impugned order, set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner and other opposite parties to replace the defective Laptop sold to the complainant by a brand new laptop of the same co figuration.  Respondent was also directed to return the defective laptop to the opposite parties on receipt of a new Laptop.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.2,100/- as costs.

The stand taken by the petitioner before the fora below was that the complainant had got the Laptop in question repaired from an

-3-

unauthorized dealer.  The State Commission rejected this contention by observing that the petitioner had failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence that the complainant had got the Laptop repaired from an unauthorized dealer.  The State Commission has also recorded that in the Job Cards, Annexures C-5 and C-6A, copies of which have been put on record before us, as well it is not mentioned that the complainant had got the Laptop repaired from unauthorized dealer.  Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes that in the Job Cards, Annexures C-5 and C-6A, it is not mentioned that the respondent had got the Laptop repaired from an unauthorized dealer.  The only evidence led by the petitioner was by way of an affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Manager of Acer India Private Ltd. who in his affidavit stated that the Laptop purchased by the complainant was examined by the Service Engineer who pointed out that the use of ‘Non-Acer Ram’ could be the cause or defect in the computer.  Affidavit of the Service Engineer was not filed.  The evidence given by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Manager is hearsay evidence which                  cannot be accepted.  There is no other evidence to show that the

-4-

respondent/complainant had got the Laptop repaired from an unauthorized dealer.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.