Order No.  9  dt.  27/09/2018

            The fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Dell Inspiron Laptop  Model No-15451 against price of Rs.9,500/- under Cash Memo No.860 dated 05/04/2017  from M/s. G.M. Computer Care, 14, Lenin Sarani, Shop No.-6, Kolkata-700 013 (o.p. no.1). After 5 days the said laptop was out of order and as such complainant met the seller of the laptop who asked the complainant to contact M/s. Laptop Doctor, Shop No.326, 3^rd Floor, Magnet House, 6, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072 (o.p. no.2) for inspection of the laptop and repair in necessity. Accordingly, complainant met the personnel of o.p. no.2 who had taken custody of the defective laptop on 10/04/2017 by issuing a Product Service Form and Material Replacement Form under Sl. No.14 dated 10/04/2017 noting the description of condition of the laptop with the assurance that it might be repaired within 2 days on payment of Rs.800/-.  Complainant thereafter met the counter of o.p. no.2 after two days and then the o.p. no. 2 demanded Rs.1,600/- further to restore the laptop to workable condition. Complainant refused to pay the additional claim of Rs.1,600/- and requested the personnel of o.p. no.2 to repair the laptop with the payment of Rs.800/- which he had already paid to the o.p. no.2. The personnel of o.p. no.2 denied to do so. Frustrating with such aforesaid trade practice of the o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2, complainant issued a legal notice against the o.ps. on 10/07/2017 asking them to comply the notice within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. But the o.ps. ignored the notice of the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying direction upon the o.ps.  to refund an amount of Rs.9,500/- along with the payment of Rs.800/- paid as repairing charges along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            PT and TR show that notice had been served upon the o.ps. Both the parties refused to receive the notice which tantamount to good service.  In spite of receiving the notice o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 did not attend in the proceedings of the case.         

            Considering the pleading of the complainant the following points are to be decided.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or UTP on the part of the o.p
2. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of fact.  

            In order to prove the case the complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence in support of the contention of the complaint and filed the documents in support of his claim including the photocopy of the cash memo issued by the o.p-1. Due to unchallenged testimony of the complaint there is no scope to disbelieve the submission of the complainant and therefore it should be accepted and necessary order is to be passed accordingly.

             Considering the submission of the complaints and the documents submitted by him it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Dell make 15451 Model laptop from o.p. no.1 on 05/04/2017 at a consideration price of Rs.9,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that the laptop had gone out of order within 05/04/2017 to 10/04/2017. It is also an admitted fact that the market price of a new laptop is much above the purchase price of this laptop of Rs.9,500/-which had been paid by the complainant to the o.p. no.1. After starting malfunctioning of the laptop complainant informed the matter of malfunctioning to the o.p. no.1 (seller of laptop) who in turn instructed the complainant to contact with o.p. no.2 for its solution. Complainant already paid Rs.800/-for restoring the laptop to workable condition on 10/04/2017. On 12/04/2017 o.p. no.2 again demanded additional amount of Rs.1,600/- against the service to be rendered keeping the laptop in their custody. For the same work for restoring the laptop to workable condition, o.p. no.2 demanded twice by Rs.800/- and Rs.1,600/- without the delivery of the laptop to the complainant. Such attempts of extracting money from a consumer is no doubt an unfair trade practice adopted by both o.p. no.2 in connivance of o.p. no.1.

             The complainant purchased the laptop on 05.04.2017 and had no scope to use it. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices  on the part of the ops and therefore, complainant will be entitled to get relief.

              Hence, ordered.

            that the case no. 108/2018 is allowed ex-parte with cost against the o.ps. The o.p-1 is directed to  pay  Rs.9,500/-( Rupees Nine thousand Five Hundred) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.500/-( Rupees Five Hundred) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/-( Rupees Five Hundred) 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.

              o.p no.2 is directed to return the laptop in question to o.p. no.1.

              Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.