In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 86 / 2011.
1) Sri Pallab Das,
Ramchandrapur, P.O. Pujali, P.S. Budge Budge, 24 Pgs(S). ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Sales Manager, Technocrat Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,
23, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700013.
2) M/s. Technocrat Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,
23, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-700013
3) R. T. Autosourcing Service Limited, H.P. Authosised Service Centre,
Vikas Bulding, 1st Floor, 1, U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kol-16. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 1 4 Dated 30/03/2012.
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Sri Pallab Das against the o.ps. Technocrat Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a laptop C-733 TU on 11.1.08 from o.p. no.2. At the time of purchase o.p. no.2 through o.p. no.1 issued an information slip along with cash memo wherein the warranty expiry date was mentioned as 31.12.10. On 14.11.09 some defects were noticed in the laptop and complainant approached o.p. no.2 for the mechanical fault i.e. DVD, RIW Tray and data backup fault. He was advised to contact o.p. no.3 for repairing the same and complainant acted accordingly. When contacted o.p. no.3 stated that complainant had no service registration number of the laptop and they were not in a position to repair the same and advised to approached o.p. no.1. Thereafter complainant went to o.p. nos. 1 an 2 several times but no tangible action was taken by them. Advocate’s notice was sent on 5.4.10 to o.ps. but o.p. nos.1 an 2 refused to undertake the repair work as the warranty expired on 31.12.10. Hence the case.
O.ps. did not appear in this case by filing w/v. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular. As o.ps. did not appear, we are not in a position to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complain ant. We find there is deficiency on the part of o.ps. being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte against the o.ps. with cost to o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 is directed to refund of Rs.17,525/- only (after depreciation) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of realization and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is also directed to return the laptop in question to o.p. no.2 after receipt of the entire sum as ordered above.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-_____ _____Sd-_____ ______Sd-_____
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT