Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S. C. Case No.24/FA/08.
(2.) THE opposite party no.1 purchased a laptop at a cost of Rs.38,600/- for personal use from the opposite party no.2. But, that laptop started malfunctioning and all the major components thereof, namely, mother board, power section, battery, hinghe, etc. showed major defects within the period of warranty. For that reason, the complainant / opposite party no.1 had to deposit the said laptop with the opposite party no.2 four times within one year and on each occasion the repairing took about a month or more. Thus, the complainant / opposite party no.1 was able to use the said laptop for about 8 months within the warranty period. So, the complainant lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan being DF Case No.15 of 2007. That complaint case was allowed ex parte against the petitioner herein and rejected against the opposite party nos.2 & 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal being S.C. Case No.24/FA/08 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (henceforth shall be called as State Commission). That appeal was allowed in part with costs. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this revisional application.
(3.) NOW, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute as to purchase of a laptop by the complainant at a cost of Rs.38,600/- from the opposite party no.2 and that the laptop started malfunctioning and for that reason the complainant had to tender the said laptop to the opposite party no.2. The repairing works were done and in this way, the complainant used the said laptop for about 8 months only with the warranty period of one year and in fact his personal materials, that is, research works had been damaged. For that reason, he filed the said complaint. The District Forum observed that there was no fault on the part of the opposite party nos.2 & 3. Herein but the petitioner who was numbered as opposite party no.3 before the District Forum did not contest the said case. Upon materials on record, the said application was allowed ex parte against him. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been allowed in part. These facts are not disputed.;