Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant purchased one computer set of Lenovo Company on 16.07.2007 for Rs.30,000/- and soon thereafter, the computer was out of order. O.P.'s were contacted, but they did not help the complainant. The set was well within the period of warranty. Alleging deficiency on the part of O.P.'s, complaint was instituted before the District Forum.

3. By way of written statement, the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the answering opposite party is the Sales Agent of Lenovo Company. The service centre of the company is situated in Mazra, Dehradun. The Lenovo Company's customer care toll free No. is 1800113324 and any complaint is to be registered with the company & it is liability of the company to attend the problems of the consumers. The complainant purchased the computer from opposite party No. 1, no software was installed in the computer by opposite party No. 1. Only the hardware was sold. The complainant had installed pirated software in the machine, without any licensed Anti- Virus Software, resulting in manufacturing of the softwares in the computer. The complainant has deliberately not made Lenovo Company as party to the complaint & hence, it is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

6. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the complainant failed to furnish expert evidence in support of alleged manufacturing defect. Also urged that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It was further stated that the complainant cannot take advantage on his own wrong, for installing pirated software. Reliance was placed on citation : Km. Namarata Singh vs. Manager, Indus; 2012(3) CPR 570 (NC), whereby Hon'ble N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi postulated as under:-

"For proving fact of manufacturing defect, expert opinion is necessary."
Forum's file) stating the pleas raised in the written statement & thus, supported the defence version. The complainant did not furnish rejoinder affidavit, in order to rebut the factum worded in the affidavit moved on behalf of the appellant.

9. No expert evidence has been filed by the complainant, nor the manufacturer company was arrayed as a party to the case. The fact as to installing pirated software by the complainant, also cuts the root of the case. The rulings referred as above, are fully applicable to the present set of facts. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to the replacement of the computer or refund of its cost - price.