A.RADHA,J. - (1.) Both these appeals arise out of the order passed in C.C. No.289/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the appellants in A-621/13 & 660/13 respectively and 1st respondent is the complainant.
(2.) The case of the complainant is that on 25/3/2010 he had purchased a laptop from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 35,467/-. It is alleged in the complaint that on 16/7/2010 the laptop was not working and approached the 1st opposite party and entrusted it for service. Subsequently it was returned with a direction to entrust the laptop with the 2nd opposite party. On 31/7/2010 the 2nd opposite party issued a job sheet to the complainant after noting the defects "Physical damage on left back corner, scratches on body". After 5 days the technician of the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant and informed that the mother board of the laptop was damaged and that cannot be repaired. It is stated in the complaint that the laptop was first handed over to the 1st opposite party's service centre where it is noted that the problem as "not on". If there had any scratches or damages in the laptop the 1st opposite party would have noted in the goods inward note supplied to the complainant. The complainant denies that the damage had occurred while it was in the custody of the complainant. It was assured by the opposite parties that the Sony Vio Laptops are of best quality and there is replacement warranty for one year. Believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant purchased the laptop. The 2nd opposite party issued a vague reply stating that the laptop was not functioning due to the damage caused while mis-handling it by the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect or other defects. The complainant alleges that the laptop supplied to the complainant is a defective one and is entitled for a new laptop instead of a defective one. The complaint is filed for replacement with a new laptop and also for Rs. 1 Lakh towards mental agony. The complainant is an Astrologer and is using the laptop for taking printout for horoscope which is highly necessary for his livelihood. Hence filed this complaint.
(3.) The 1st opposite party is a business concern and is selling the products of various companies on a meagre margin. The sale of laptop to the complainant is admitted. When the complainant approached with the complaints of laptop on 16/7/2010, the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, the authorised service centre as there had the defect to the lap top as 'not on'. The 1st opposite party did not exactly know about the actual cause for the defect in the laptop owned by the complainant. The communication between the complainant and the representative of the 2nd opposite party are not within the direct knowledge of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had not given any promise to repair or replace the laptop at the time of purchase contrary to the warranty conditions offered by the manufacturer. It is an admitted fact that the laptop was working upto 15/7/2010 after the purchase. Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the 1st opposite party and the complaint is only to be dismissed.;