The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased HP Laptop Model No.15-AC 043TU, Batch: Cnd5204 on 26.7.2015 from Camellia Computer Bazar, Serampore. Cash memo has been filed. There was one year guarantee. On 27.7.2016, the computer stopped functioning. On 25.7.2016 the complainant talks to HP Company. On 26.7.2016 some people of company came to the complainant. After that they did not come. The complainant informed many times to the Camellia Computer Bazar wherein computer is situated and he talked with Mr. Chatterjee. Accordingly, this case has been filed for payment of Rs.5000/- for harassment. The complaint has filed Xerox copy of invoice dated 26.7.2015 and service call report dated 5.7.2016.
The O.P. No.2 & 3 prepared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations. It is the specific case of the O.P. No.2 & 3 that the complainant neglected to follow the guideline in the manual and they stated that guaranty was one year but the complainant has come after one year. There had been improper maintenance, operational fault and there was physical damage of the laptop of the complainant. It is also alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction. As per report of the complainant they attended the complainant on 27.7.2016 and inspection work was done and the service team explained the difficulties of the laptop. The technical team had rejected the case as the issue reported is caused due to physical damage not cover under warranty. The service team had explained that the issues are not covered under the warranty and not eligible for free cost repair. The some totals of written version stands reject the prayer of complainant.
The complainant filed evidence in chief and the all O.P.s filed their evidence in chief. Complainant filed documents like purchase bill and service call report.
Points for consideration
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECESION WITH REASON
It is admitted position that complainant purchased the laptop from the O.P. No.1 and the complainant informed the difficulty to the O.P. and on 26.7.2016, the Company’s people inspected the laptop. It also stated by the complainant that the said laptop had one year guaranty but it is started not functioning from 23.7.2016. From the version of the complainant that he purchased the laptop on 26.7.2015. On 25.7.2016 he talked with the HP Company and on 26.7.2016, company’s people came to the complainant. On 5.9.2016 the company informed that repairing work would be chargeable because the said laptop has taken place after one year and the guaranty was one year. So, from the statement of both sides it appears that O.P. attended the allegation after receiving the information and the same was done on 26.7.2016. They also informed the complainant regarding expenses to be borne by him for repairing. Accordingly, the material does not show any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. because they attended the laptop just after receiving the complaint and on that date one year guaranty has already passed and as per complainant the guaranty was one year.
So, after deliberation of the vast W.V. of O.P. No.2 & 3 and record we are of the opinion that there are no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2 & 3, as the period of guaranty was over. Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
