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.
The complaint was resisted by opposite party No.2 HCL Info Systems Ltd., on the grounds noted hereinabove. It was also pointed out in the reply that HCL Info Systems was only a service provider and the lap top in question was manufactured by Toshiba which had issued an international limited warranty, while selling the said lap top. According to the said respondent there was no deficiency in the services which they had to render as a service provider, in respect of the lap top purchased by the complainant.
4. VIDE its order dated 13 -10 -2008 the District Forum directed the respondent HCL Info systems Ltd. as well as Tech Mart Systems Pvt. Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/ - to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of purchase of lap top along with Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs.3,000/ - as cost of litigation.
5. BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, HCL Info Systems Ltd. approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State commission, vide impugned order dated 11 -08 -2010, allowed the appeal filed by the said respondent. Being aggrieved the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.
6. WE are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that as far as HCL Info Systems Ltd. is concerned, being a service provider in respect of Toshiba lap tops it was required only to service the said lap tops as and when any complaint during the warranty period of the lap top was reported to it. In the event of any component in the lap top being found defective, the said service provider was also required to replace the defective component. If, however, there was some inherent manufacturing defect in the lap top purchased by the complainant, his remedy lied against the manufacturer and/or the seller of the lap top and not against the service provider. It is the manufacturer/seller who is primarily liable to either replace the product suffering from a manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired or give refund of the money paid by the purchaser for purchase of the said defective product.
7. IN the case before us, the lap top purchased by the complaint was examined by the engineer of HCL Info systems Ltd. on 26 -09 -2007 and no problem in its hardware was found. The aforesaid respondent by carrying out the necessary checkup of the lap top when it was brought to them, rendered the service which it was expected to provide as a service provider. Had any defective component of the lap top been found at that time and had that component not been replaced only then it could have been said that the service provider was deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Thereafter, the lap top was brought to the service centre of the respondent on 17 -03 -2008 with a complaint that the system was not booting. The RAM in the lap top was fixed at that time and as a result of fixing the RAM it became functional. Though the complainant complained about LCD and hard disk of the lap top, the said complaint could not be verified since he refused to leave the lap top at the service centre and insisted on getting refund of the money paid by him for purchase of the lap top. In our opinion, if the complainant was not satisfied merely with the fixing of RAM, he ought to have left the lap top at the service centre of HCL Info Systems Ltd. for checking of LCD and hard disk of the lap top. That having not been done, he is to blame only himself since he did not give an opportunity to the service provider to rectify the defect alleged by him. In fact, an adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant for refusing to leave the lap top at the service centre, the inference being that had he left the lap top the engineers on checking it could have found that there was no problem with the LCD or with the hard disk. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of the HCL Info Systems Ltd. in the services rendered to the complainant.
8. MORE importantly, as rightly noted by the State Commission no technical evidence was produced by the complainant to prove before the District Forum that the lap top which he had purchased form opposite party No.1 was not functioning properly and continued to suffer from defects at the time the complaint was filed by him. Considering the stand taken by the respondents that no defect in the lap top was found by them, the complainant ought to have examined some technical expert to prove that the lap top purchased by him was not working properly and continued to suffer from one or more defects. We are in agreement with the State Commission that in the absence of such a technical evidence, the District Forum was not justified in holding that the lap top purchased by the complainant was defective. In fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the complainant has made it a practice to purchase laptops, use them for some time and then seek refund or replacement alleging defects. He states that this was not done only with the respondent when the first Toshiba lap top was purchased, but also with another company HP. He also states that on one occasion the complainant had forcibly detained their mechanic, and they had to seek police aid, to rescue him. We, however, do not wish to go into those allegations, since in our view the complainant has otherwise failed to prove any defect in the laptop.
9. FOR the reasons stated hereinabove we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The money which the respondent had deposited in compliance of the interim order passed by this Commission be refunded to the said respondent along with interest, if any which may have accrued on that amount.
