BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T. Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 18th day of November , 2010
C.C.No 116/10
Between:
T.Ellayya alias T.Yellaiah, S/o. T.Sunkanna,
H.No.80-132-3A, Upstairs, Venkatadri Nagar, Kurnool.
.…Complainant
-Vs-
M/s. V.L.Ccomputers, Sales and Services,
Shop No.1, Somisetty Complex, Opp. To Raj Theatre, Kurnool. ….…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Krishna , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. M . Indra Vijaya Rao, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 116/10
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP
- to replace the Lenova Laptop supplied to him on
01-09-2008 with a new Laptop with a perfect condition alternatively pay the purchase money Rs.47,500/- with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of purchase (01-09-2008) till the date of realization.
- to award damages of Rs.25,000/- against the OP for causing
mental agony and torture and
- to direct the OP to pay the deficiency in service charges
of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant
- to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honorable Forum
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant is as under :- The complainant purchased a Lenova Laptop from OP on 01-09-2008 for Rs.47,500/- . The OP issued a bill No. 94. The warranty period is one year. The OP gave a defective Laptop to the complainant. Four months after purchase of the Laptop there was a crack on the back side of the Laptop and its operation became slow. The complainant met the OP and gave the Laptop for repairs on 12-05-2009. The OP passed a receipt on 12-05-2009 in token of having received the Laptop. Inspite of repeated demands the OP did not return the Laptop after effecting the repairs. On 28-04-2010 the complainant sent a notice to the OP to get the Laptop repaired and return it. There was no response from the OP. There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant under went lot of mental agony an account of the attitude of the OP. Hence the complaint.
3. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant purchased Laptop from the OP under the bill No.94 with warranty period of one year. The OP received the Laptop on 12-05-2009 and passed a receipt. The complainant sent a notice to the OP on 28-04-2010 requesting to get the Laptop repaired. The manufacturer of Laptop is not added as a party. The OP is one of the agent of Lenova company. The complaint is bad of non joinder of necessary party. At the time of purchase of the Laptop the OP informed that there will not be any replacement of the Laptop for physical damage in handling it. The complainant and his daughter after checking the Laptop and satisfying with its performance and quality purchased the computer. At the time of the purchase of the Laptop the OP was not informed that there was defect in the Laptop. Four months after the purchase of the Laptop by the complainant , the complainant approached the OP and requested to send the damaged Laptop to service station. The company service station informed that the Laptop was damaged due to the negligent handling by the complainant .The OP number of times requested the complainant to return the receipt issued to him on 12-05-2009 and take back his computer. The complainant instead of doing so got issued a legal notice. This complaint is filed to extract money from the OP. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainants Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant No.1 is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and the sworn affidavit of OP is filed
5. Both sides filed written arguments. .
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
(ii) whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant purchased Laptop from the Op for Rs.47,750/- on 01-09-2008 under bill No. 94 which is marked as Ex.A1. Admittedly on 12-05-2009 the complainant handedover the said Laptop to the OP and the OP passed a receipt Ex. A3. It is further admitted by OP that the complainant gave the original of Ex.A4 legal notice on 28-04-2010 demanding the OP to return the Laptop after effecting the repairs.
8. According to the complainant four months after purchase of the Laptop there was a crack on its back side and that the operation of the Laptop became slow. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase they noticed crack on the back side of the Laptop. It is also not the case of the complainant that the Laptop was not functioning properly at the time of its purchase from the OP on 01-09-2008. As seen from Ex.A3 it is very clear that on 12-05-2009 the complainant handedover his Laptop to the OP for servicing. In the said receipt Ex.A3 it is mentioned that the warranty is only against technical defects and not for physical damage. In E.xA1 it is mentioned that there is no warranty for burn/physical damage . It is the case of the OP that after receiving the Laptop he sent it to the company servicing station and that the servicing station informed that the Laptop received damage due to the negligent handling. The OP filed Ex.B1 customers service report issued by Hitech Informatics Private Limited, Anantapur. In the said report it is mentioned that there was breakage of upper cape and lower cape of the computer of the complainant . It is further mentioned that the said breakage is physical damage and it does not cover warranty. As the physical damage to the Laptop occurred while in the custody of the complainant the OP can not be blamed for it. The complainant has to get it repaired by paying amount for spare parts. The OP is not under obligation to get the Laptop repaired as it sustained physical damage due to negligent handling. It is not the case of the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the Laptop purchased by him. It is not proved by the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the Laptop. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the OP. Any how the Laptop of the complainant is in a custody of OP. We think it is just and proper to direct the OP to return the Laptop to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.
9.Point No3: In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs. The OP is directed to return the Laptop of the complainant to the complainant within one month from the date of order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of November, 2010.
Sd/ Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Purchase bill dt.01-09-2008 issued by V.L.Computers, Kurnool for Rs.53,500/-
Ex.A2. Receipt for advance payment of Rs.10,000/-
dt.28-08-2008.
Ex.A3. Receipt in token of V.L.Computers, Kurnool,
dt.12-05-2009, token No.7927.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dt.28-04-2010.
Ex.A5. Postal receipt and acknowledgement
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Customer service report dt: 25-06-2009 issue by the Authorized service station of Lenovo company,
Anantapur.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-0
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
