R KUMAR KWATRA Vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant/petitioner purchased a Toshiba laptop from opposite party No.1/respondent No.2 -Tech Mart Systems Pvt. Ltd. on 12 -01 -2006 for a consideration of Rs.56,160/ -. He, however, complained that the said laptop was defective and eventually the matter was settled by way of a written compromise dated 07 -04 -2006. Under the compromise the lap top purchased by the complainant on 12 -01 -2006 was replaced by a higher end model bearing No.M70P540. The difference of price between higher model provided to the complainant and the model which he had purchased on 12 -01 -2006 was also not charged from him.

(2.) ON 06 -08 -2007 the complainant purchased another Toshiba lap top, this time model M200 from Tech Mart Systems Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.72,000/ -. This time also he complained of defect in the lap top purchased by him and the same was replaced by a new lap top on 14 -08 -2007. The new laptop given to the complainant as a replacement carried warranty of one year from the date of original purchase i.e. from 06 -08 -2007. On a complaint made by the complainant the second lap top issued to him was inspected by the engineer of opposite party No.2 HCL Info Systems Ltd. on 26 -09 -2007, but no problem was found in the hardware of the said computer. According to the aforesaid respondent even latest sound driver was applied and it was found that the lap top was working fine. According to the said respondent, on 17 -03 -2008 the complainant brought the aforesaid lap top to the service centre and after fixing the RAM it became functional. Since the complainant complained also about LCD and hard disk malfunctioning he was asked to leave the lap top at the service centre so that the defect could be rectified but he refused to get the same serviced and demanded refund of his money. According to the respondent, the complainant was not entitled to replacement of the laptop and in the event of a defect been found they were required to only repair of the lap top and/or replace the defective component if any.

(3.) BEING aggrieved from the refusal of the respondent to refund the money paid by him the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation for financial loss, mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ - towards compensation for the alleged negligence along with interest @24% per annum.