1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Laptop from OP.2 on 10.06.2014 in the name of his son, Debasish Acharya but the dealer issued invoice on 12.6.14 with one year warranty from the date of issue of invoice.  It is submitted that on 10.6.14 the son of the complainant, as per advice of OP.2 contacted OP.1 with complaint of low battery backup but the OP did not replace the defective battery.  As the battery totally stopped working on 03.6.15, the son of the complainant immediately lodged a complaint with OP.1 who rejected the complaint on the ground of expiry of warranty.  However as per the advice of OP.1, the complainant approached OP.2 but the said OP.2 did not replace the battery.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the battery and to pay suitable compensation and costs.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter with certain preliminary objections but admitted the sale of HP laptop to the complainant by its dealer-OP.2.  The OP contended that the complainant had purchased the laptop on 08.6.14 and paid the amount on 12.6.14 and got the invoice on 12.6.14, hence the warranty starts from 08.06.14.  Denying the receipt of any complaint from the complainant on 03.06.15 regarding defect in the battery, the OP also contended that the complainant only on 12.6.15 had reported the defects in the battery and on receipt of complaint the service team of OP learnt that the warranty of laptop was not getting updated due to invalid invoice and hence the service team were unable to process the request of the complainant.  However, the OP is ready to replace the battery.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 filed its reply contending that he sold HP Laptop Model D103TX to Mr. Debasish Acharya vide Chalan No.92/8.6.14 and Bill No.53 dt.12.6.2014 for Rs.42, 000/- and the complainant lodged complaint on 10.6.14 for battery low backup which is under warranty as the warranty is valid from 12.6.14 to 11.6.15 but the OP.1 rejected the call.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The OP.1 filed affidavit and written argument in support of his case.  We perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case sale of HP Laptop to the complainant by OP.2 which is the product of OP.1 is an admitted fact. The OP.1 raised certain preliminary issue stating that the complainant is not a consumer as the bill stands in the name of Debasis Acharya.  The complainant in his application stated that his is a student of B. Tech. and purchased the Laptop for his son and got the invoice issued in the name of his son.  It is seen from the record that Debasish has authorised his father to file this case against the Ops for redressal of his grievance.  In this case Dabasish Acharya is the complainant and he has filed this case through his father and legal guardian.  As the consideration amount of laptop has been paid by the father of the complainant which is an undisputed fact, the father is competent to sign the verification duly authorized by the complainant.  Hence in this case, Debasish is the complainant and has filed this case and hence this case is maintainable.  Accordingly the preliminary objection of OP.1 is rejected.

6.                     The complainant stated that he purchased the laptop on 10.6.14 but the OP.2 issued invoice on 12.6.14.  The OP.2 says that he has sold the laptop to the complainant on 08.6.14 through a Chalan and issued invoice on 12.6.14.  The reason for such arrangement has not been disclosed by the OP.2 in this case.  No copy of Chalan dt.08.6.14 is filed by OP.2. Hence we hold that the laptop has been sold by the Ops to the complainant on 10.6.14.  But the warranty starts from the date of actual invoice as per settled principle of law.

7.                     The complainant alleges that on day one of purchase, the battery did not give proper back up and as per advice of OP.2 the complainant has made a complaint of low battery backup with OP.1.  Thereafter on 03.6.15 and 5.6.15 the complainant has also made complaints with OP.1 regarding low battery backup but the OP.1 rejected the call on the

ground of expiry of warranty.  The OP.1 in this context stated that he has never received any complaint regarding fault in battery except the complaint dt.12.6.14 when the system was not under warranty.

8.                     We have carefully gone through the record and found that the complainant has lodged complaints on 03.6.15 and 05.6.2015.  Complaint ID No.4753432951 is clearly mentioned in the copy of job sheet received from OP.1 on 04.06.15 and 06.06.15.  The OP.1 has insisted scan copy of invoice dt.12.6.14 to which the complainant has sent.  Copy of all materials is available on record.  In spite of those papers available on record, denial of receipt of any complaint before 12.6.15 by OP.1 from the complainant is not acceptable by us.  The OP.1 further stated that on 12.6.15 they attended the complaint but were unable to process the request due to invalid invoice.  This contention of OP.1 has not been duly explained by any of the Ops.

9.                     The complainant has made complaint regarding low battery back up on the day one of purchase of laptop as per advice of OP.2.  This fact was never denied by OP.2 in his counter reply.  Further it is seen that the complainant has lodged complaint before OP.1 on 03.6.15 and 05.6.15 when the system was under warranty but the Ops did not replace the battery with some untenable pleas.  Invalid invoice if any happened is the mistake of OP.2 and he is responsible for entry of sale particulars to be communicated to the Company.  Hence the OP.2 is also responsible for the sufferings of the complainant.

10.                   In view of above facts, we are of the view that the battery of laptop gave low backup during warranty period but in spite of complaints, the Ops failed to replace the same which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, the OP.1 is to be directed to replace the battery with a new one under warranty and to rectify the defects if any in the laptop.  Similarly for the latches on the part of OP.2, the complainant suffered and hence the OP.2 is to be directed to compensate the complainant for the sufferings sustained.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

11.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to replace the battery of the laptop under warranty with a new one and to rectify the defects if any.  Similarly, the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.    The above directions are to be complied by the Ops within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum against OP.2 shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.

(to dict.)