This case has been filed by Mrs. Subhra Bagchi W/o. Late Pankaj Kumar Bagchi of Saratpally Maheshmati under Malda District of West Bengal praying for an order against O.Ps for replacement of his purchased Laptop or refund of Rs. 30286.46 along with compensation of Rs. 15000/- for harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation.
The case of the petitioner is that she purchased one Lenovo’s Laptop from O.P.1 paying an amount of Rs. 30288.46 but the said laptop did not function properly after few months and as per his reporting the said laptop was repaired by O.P.1 with a hitch and again spots creating visibility problem were developed over screen after a year and again similar spot appeared thereafter. The petitioner informed the situation to O.Ps and O.P’s through return mail appraised that the petitioner is not entitled to hardware warranty and hence the spot that appears due to internal damage is not their area of repair work. Though the warranty was guaranteed the period and nothing mentioned about internal damage and hardware warranty condition the O.Ps denied her complaint for spot appearing creating visibility and readability problems and did not act to repair the same and hence she failed this case for the deficiency in service of the respondents.
O.Ps did not appear in the case and did not take any action in spite of summons sent as per proper notice and service token and thus O.Ps did not contest the case.
Therefore, the case was heard an ex parte basis as per norms
On the basis of the same following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the ops?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relieves as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
From the oral evidence of the petitioner and documentary evidences put up by the petitioner it is revealed that petitioner purchased one laptop of Lenovo make on 06.02.2012 from O.P.1 at a cost of Rs. 30288.46 for her personal use. After few months of purchase of the Laptop that same problem cropped up with the machine and after repair of the same by O.P.1, a new problem like a black spot started appearing in the screen appearing in the screen of the machine laptop and this was found within the warranty period. The petitioner rushed to centre from whom the petitioner purchased the Lenovo make Laptop and such centre is O.P. 1 in this case. The said defect was removed by the act of O.P.1 but it was a temporary relief and the petitioner found a spot in the screen again and the datum coming on the screen are not readable. The petitioner reaching to O.P. side came to know that the defect is a manufacturing problem and the spot appears for that.
The petitioner already renewed the warranty period as per norms of the company and as per that he is get service and the company did not respond to the petitioner’s claim of removing deficiency like spot and thereafter petitioner demanded for replacement of laptop with a new one and this was within the warranty period but the O.P. Lenovo Ltd. sent message in spite with regret that the Lenovo India Ltd. did not give warranty for any hardware problem related to the machine laptop.
This Forum did not find any word in writing form that the hardware is not within warranty of Lenovo Laptop. There is also no any statement regarding the issue of hardware in the warranty document which they sent via e-mail and refused to remove the defects.
Thus the Forum is of clear opinion for this case is that though the problem of the purchased material appeared within the warranty period and O.P. comprehending it properly as defect likely to be manufacturing defect or organic linkage failure, the O.P. did not think inside and did not care to make any arrangement for the petitioner to work with a working machine by removing defects or replacing the defective laptop which he is bound to do as per statement of warranty card and as per the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide workable laptop to the customer.
When the O.P. sent the regret letter, we think, it will be proper to replace the laptop with a new one by the O.P, otherwise he will pay the value of laptop for the amount of Rs.30288./- along with a compensation of Rs. 15000/- for harassment and mental agony.
The oral evidence of petitioner corroborated by documents established the facts of petition and summon upon O.P’s duly served but they did not appear and hence this suit is decreed on ex parte.
There is no controversy on the evidence and the petition is corroborated by the witness of P.W.-1 and thus the case is proved in favour of the petitioner.
In the result, the claim case succeeds.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No. 10/2015 is allowed ex parte against the O.Ps 1 to 3 with cost. Complainant do get an award for getting a new laptop as per replacement of the purchased one or get payment of Rs. 30288/- along with harassment. payment of Rs.15000/- totaling Rs.45288/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Eight Only) as per contract agreement and O.P.1, O.P.2 and O.P.3 are jointly and severally liable to comply replacement of laptop or ensure payment of the aforesaid sum within 45 days from the date of this order failing which they will be bound to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from this date until recovery and the petitioner is at liberty to put the decree in execution.
A copy of this order be given to the petitioner free of cost and send to O.P. Nos. 1 2 and 3 by Registered Post with A.D. as the case is heard ex parte against them.
