: FINAL ORDER :
DATE OF FILING : 16.06.2017
ORDER No. 14
DATE. 15.06.2018
Smt. Nabanita Kar – President-in-Charge
This case has been filed by the Petitioner Agnidhra Chakraborty Krishnagar, Nadia praying for an order against the OP to take back the defective substandard Laptop from him by refunding entire consideration amount of Rs. 39,902/- to him and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with other reliefs mentioned in the petition.
The case of the petitioner is that the complainant purchased a HP Laptop being model Ab035 Ax 5CD5265FMH from the shop of OP1 on 09.09.2015 for consideration of Rs. 39,902/-. Soon after purchasing the complainant observed that graphic card was not performing as recommended by the company as such the configuration of the Laptop as stated by the company is not at all matching with his Laptop. Thereafter, on 16.09.2015 complainant complained to the OP2 but nothing was solved by OP2. Thereafter, the complainant made at least 8 complaints on different dates i.e. on 26.09.15 14.10.2015, 31.10.2015, 18.11.2015, 05.12.2015, 26.12.2015, 07.03.2016 & 16.03.2016 but the problem of the Laptop could not be solved. Complainant also made e-mail to the OP2 and after discussion OP admitted that the said Laptop was configured with DDR3 AMD/AIT card but as per their version to get the performance of AMD Radeon R7 M3600 graphics, the said Laptop is required DDR5 memory and for that reason machine is not performing accordingly. The alleged Laptop is on warranty period. Knowing all the facts that the Laptop is not up to their promised standard, the OP tactfully did not change his Laptop. It is OPs unfair trade practice. Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this case.
OP No.1 has contested the case by filing a written version denying and disputing, inter alia, the claim and contention of the complainant with prayer for dismissal of the case with cost.
This specific stand of the OP 1 is that complainant came to his shop for purchasing a Laptop for his personal purpose and he requested the staff of the OP 1 to inform him with configuration of the Laptop which would come within the budget of the complainant. OP 1 showed different Laptops manufactured by different companies. Considering his requirements and budget, the complainant chose a Laptop manufactured by HP being number Ab035 Ax 5CD5265FMH and paid Rs. 39,902/-. After full satisfaction of the complainant, of the said Laptop was delivered. As the product was in sealed condition, if any defect cropped up in the said Laptop, OP No. 2 is the sole authority to render the service. This OP has no authority or liability to render the service for the said Laptop. So, this OP has no authority to provide service for any defect cropped up after sale of the goods. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of him. Under the above facts and circumstance of the case, OP prayed for dismissal of the case at sufficient cost.
Notice was duly served to the OP 2, Manager, Ensure Support Services (India) Ltd., Kolkata – 16, but the same was returned back as postal remark “Left. So the case runs ex-parte against the OP No. 2
:Points for consideration:
- Is the case maintainable both in law and fact?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty for deficiency in service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASON:
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision. Seen and perused the petition of complaint & written version filed by the OP 1, and other relevant materials on record and the BNA filed by the complainant and OP 1.
Now after due consideration of the materials on record and arguments of Ld. Lawyers of both sides, we find that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. Admittedly this Forum has jurisdiction of both pecuniary and territorial to hear and to dispose of this case.
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one HP Laptop, Model No. Ab035 AX 5CD5265FMH on 09.09.2015 for consideration of Rs.39,902/-. The said Laptop is supported by AMD Radeon R7 M3600 Graphics (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) (Memory type DDR3) as per Annexure 1 which is filed by the complainant. After purchasing the Laptop the complainant observed that graphic card was not performing. It is fact that the complainant made so many complaints against the OP 2 i.e service provider but nothing was solved by the OP 2. As per OP 1, the said Laptop was configurised with AMD Radeon R7 M3600 Graphics (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) (Memory type DDR3) card but said Laptop required DDR5 memory, therefore, the machine is not performing accordingly. As per Annexure - 2 to 10 which are filed by the complainant as job card service call report, it is crystal clear that the Graphics and any other system problems made out but no steps are taken by the OP.
It is evident from documents filed by the complainant that at the time of marketing the product, OP gave an advertisement by saying that the product configuration content is AMD REDON R7 M360 graphic video card, but in their correspondence through email sent to the complainant they admitted that the product is fitted with R5 graphic card which is clear a case of unfair trade practices as we observed from the documents.
Hence, it is clear that the cause of action arose on 09.09.2015 when the complainant purchased the said Laptop but the said Laptop was not performing proper as per requiring by the complainant AMD Radeon R7 M3600 Graphics (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) (Memory type DDR3) as per video card which was provided by the OP company. But the Laptop was not functioning proper Radeon R7 M3699 Graphics. It was clear as per job card that the defective Laptop was sold out by the OP.
Ordered,
That the case / application is allowed on contest. OP1 is directed to refund Rs.39,902/- to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the said Laptop to the OP1, OP 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation for his mental agony & harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date hereof failing which it will carry interest @ 8% per annum till realization of entire awarded sum of money and the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the same as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Let plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties / their Ld. Advocates / agents forthwith free of cost or send by ordinary post.
