Shri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member :

The complaint case has been filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the OPs for deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practices in a matter of dispute regarding repair of a laptop type computer machine.

The facts leading to the present complaint case in gist is that the complainant filed an amendment petition u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a matter of dispute about laptop repair. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a HP make 15”, I 3 Processor 10^th Generation high end thin and light laptop from the OP1 on 17.10.2020 paying Rs.35,990/-. The complainant handed over the laptop to OP2 service centre within warrantee period and the OP2 retuned the same after repair. It is stated by the complainant that thereafter again the problem got developed and it was resent to the another service centre of the OEM which is represented by OP 3 and OP 4. The laptop is not returned to the complainant till filing of the instant complaint. As such the complainant was forced to purchase another new Laptop for uninterrupted flow of work. The complainant made several complaints for repairing and replacement of the original laptop but the OP3 and OP4 remained silent over the issue.

Hence the case.

The Complainant prays for a direction on the OP for returning the purchase amount of the said laptop for Rs.37,000/- along with 18% interest per annum,  compensation for Rs.50,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant exhibited copies of documents (unserialised) e.g. tax Invoice dated 17.10.2020 for Rs.35,990/- issued by the OP-1 company, service report dated 16.03.2021 from the manufacturer, service requests record no.5071365598 dated 25.08.2021 and quotation dated 07.09.2021 from service centre OP3/OP4 for Rs.12,217.74 /- to substantiate his allegations as per complaint petition. 

On the other hand, the OP3 and OP4 contested that they being the authorised service centre of the manufacturer repaired the laptop on 11.03.2020 being within warrantee and the customer accepted the same commenting that “ now problem is almost solved’. Consequent upon re lodging further complaint by customer on 26.08.2021 and on 04.09.2021 it got revealed that part number of the failed HDD component did not match with the original HDD component, that was supplied initially vide part no. CND025B7N8 during sale of new equipment. This aspect was concealed by the complainant. OP3 and OP4 also contested that the laptop was previously taken to OP2 service centre to which they are not the party.  

The matter was heard as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the Complainant in full and today is fixed for passing final order. From the records and documents, it is observed that as per Order no.15 dated 25.05.2023, the OP 1 was expunged from the cause title of the complaint. The case has been running ex-parte against OP-2 as per Order no.11 dated 13.12.2023. The OP 3 and 4 contested the case by filing W/V on 14.09.2022. The complaint petition was treated as their evidence by the complainant. The complainant argued the case along with filing BNA when the OP 3 & 4 remained absent without steps.

As per comments of the OEM in exhibits, it appears that the laptop was mal-functioning and sent for repair which was duly completed as per service report dated 18.03.2021 with a comments “ Replace HDD now it’s working fine” and the complainant subscribed his signature in that service report without any remarks or protest. Again that part i.e. the ‘hard disk drive (HDD)’ was found defective and another complaint was lodged on 25.08.2021 vide complaint number 5071365598. But as per comments dated 06.09.2021 of OP3 /OP4 of HP Care quoting that ‘ during the visit, it was found that the component number of the failed (HDD) is not matching with the original (HDD)  - component number supplied with the product. In other words, the original HDD did not match as per the original part number that was initially supplied by the OEM with original equipment during sale of the product. As per extant terms and conditions as exhibited by the compliant between the OEM and purchaser and also as per settled principles of law, the manufacturer is not supposed to replace or repair the spare parts that has not been supplied by themselves. This counter allegation, alleged by the OP3/OP4 in their W/V was never negated by complainant at any stage or even touched upon by the complainant including BNA. It is the settled principle of law that the onus to prove the allegations lie on the complainant. But in this case the complainant has not opted for appointment of any expert either, to establish his claims against all the OPs.

As such the instant case, be and the same, which was running ex-parte against OP2 and on contest by OP3 and OP4, is not established as the complainant could not make out a case prima facie, possibly due to his own fault.

Hence, it is

                                 ORDERED

  The case fails to succeed and dismissed accordingly.

There shall be no order as to cost.

  Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties as per CPR.

  That the final order will be available in the following website     www.confonet.in.

   Dictated and corrected by me.

             Member