MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…                       The substance of complaint is that, the Complainant had purchased a Laptop Inspiron 15 Dell vide its Service Tag No.(S/N) GC8SJ22, bearing Express Service Code No. 35568879482, on dated 28/02/2015 from OP.No-01 by paying an amount of Rs.67,200/-. The complainant submitted that, after purchase and use of just five months i.e. in the month of August'2015 the said set appears problems like, Keyboard was not working and the windows of device also reported defective. Hence the complainant lodged 03 complaints before the authorized engineer Mr Pratik Umrania through toll free no.1800 425 0088 of OP.no.2 to redeem the set who provided suggestions through telephone and email to the complainant to resolve the problem but no one attended personally to the complaint of complainant. Further the customer care official said that the device had no warranty as on 11.11.2015 and also express that there is no service center in Odisha, hence advised the complainant to approach any paid service center to repair the set. But under unavoidable circumstances, the complainant approached the OP for several times through their toll free number but the efforts are in vain. The complainant being an employee of private limited company and his wife being a Govt employee inflicted huge losses in their profession due to the inaction of OP hence the complainant harassed a lot, which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant craves the leave of this forum and prayed for justice. So he specifically prayed before the Forum to direct the OP to replace the defective set with a new one or to pay the price of the said laptop set and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation for such negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s.

2.         The OP.no.2 entered his appearance through his counsel who filed his counter and stated that, the instant complaint has no specific allegation on OP.2 for any kind of deficiency in service. However he admitted in his counter that, the complainant has procured the alleged laptop set on dt.28.02.2015 and for the first time he contacted the OP.2 on 12.08.2015 and reported the issue of screen flickering, for which the service technician of OP.2 diagnosed the system and found defect in operating system. And on 11.09.15 the complainant again contacted this OP. and seeking drivers for upgraded operating system, to which the technician tried to educate the complainant that the same is available on dell's website and can be downloaded free of cost. Again on dt.12.01.16 the complainant reported for the issue of keyboard defects, to which the technician of this OP also guided the complainant to reinstall the operating system but the complainant did not follow the guidance of OP.2. So this OP always attended the complaint and resolved the issues arouse by the complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service by this OP. Hence he prayed to dismiss the case against this OP with cost in the ends of justice.

3.         On the other hand, the OP.1 neither appeared nor files his counter in the case despite chances given to him since its admission. Hence the OP.1 set ex parte as per provisions of C.P.Act.1986. The complainant has filed copy of certain documents along with his affidavit in support of his claims. The counsel for complainant heard the case at length and perused the records. Submissions considered.

4.         The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.

5.         From the above submissions, it is found that the complainant has procured the laptop set on dt.28.02.2015 by paying Rs.63,800/- and the same found defect with in valid warranty period. It is seen from the record that, the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice of OP.1 and some email complaints & reply dt.24.8.15, 14.09.15, 04.11.15, 06.11.15, 12.11.15, 20.11.15 and 12.01.16, with OP.no.2 and copy of warranty etc. It is also seen from the record that, the set was found defect within valid warranty period but the OP.2 though educate the complainant through telephone and emails but never depute any service engineer/technician to resolve the problem despite a service engineer resides at Jeypore in the District of Koraput i.e. distance of only 42 Km. from Nabarangpur. The service technicians of OP.2 tried to educate the complainant through telephone and emails but due to lack of software knowledge, the complainant could not properly follow up the instructions and knowing all the facts, the OP deliberately not deputed their service engineer for a long time, hence found deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. Prior to attend a number of calls the OP.2 neither taken any practical initiation nor replaced the alleged set with a new one. As per the specifications of warranty conditions, the complainant approached the OP.s for necessary repair reporting the above said problems, but the OP.s neither repaired the set through their service engineer nor replaced the set with a new one and deliberately kept the complainant in dark. Considering the evidences, submissions filed by the complainant, we feel that, the laptop set of the complainant has both hardware and software defects and the OP failed to provide service when it requires within valid warranty period. Hence the complainant going through mental tension, inflicted financial losses and valuable times craves the leave of this forum under unavoidable circumstances.

6.         In view of the above transactions we feel that, despite repeat approaches by complainant, the OP.s with highhanded, arbitrary and adamant manner abstained to render proper service to the complainant during needful time within valid warranty period which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.1986. Hence we feel that the action of OP is illegal, unfair, and contrary to the provisions of contract of sales, hence found guilty of deficiency in service under the provisions of C.P.Act 1986, hence the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief.

            However, the complaint is allowed against the OP.no.2 with costs.

                                     O  R  D  E  R

i.          The opposite party no.2 supra is hereby directed to pay the price of the laptop set i.e. Rs.63,800/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand & eight hundred only) in place of the defective one, inter alia to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization.

            Pronounced in the open forum on this the 29th day of June'2016.

                   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

              MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                  NABARANGPUR.