DOF.14.05.2009

                                                                  DOO.04.07.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy              : Member

Dated this, the 4^th   day of   July    2011

CC.124/2009

Sudhan.K.R,

Kizhakkanadiyil House,

Kaniyanchal, P.O.Karuvanchal,

Alakode(Via)                                                          Complainant

 (Rep. by Adv.Denny George)

1. ON LINE IT SHOPPE,

    India Private Ltd.,

    On Line House, 39/3655,

    S.A.Road, Sough Over Bridge, West End,

    Valanhambalam, Kochi 16.

    (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran)                             Opposite parties

2. The Proprietor,

    VERTEX TECHNO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

    Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra.P.O.,

    Cochin 20.

3.The Manufacturer,

   Hewlett Packard India,

   24, Salarpuria Arena,

   Adugodi, Hosur Road,Bangalore 560030.

   (Rep. by Adv.A.K.Sajith Kumar)                         

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to take back the laptop and to pay the purchase price of `32,415 together with a sum of  `25,000  as compensation with interest and cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:  Complainant is a computer programmer on profession. On 4.7.08 he had purchased a lap top bearing serial No.CND.822TN9G named Lap top Compaq Presario C 700 TU and its accessories from 1^st opposite party for `32,415. Free service and replacement is guaranteed during warranty period. He operated the system as per the user’s manual. The system became defective within two weeks.  He brought the same to 1^st opposite party as per his advice on 1.9.08 and returned on 10.9.08 stating that the hard disc of the computer has been replaced. But it was not with the consent of the complainant. By replacing the hard disc the complainant’s many personal details and valuable projects etc. were lost. It has become defective again within three days. 1^st  opposite party advised to bring  it to 2^nd opposite prty  and as per his advise the mother board was changed by 2^nd opposite party and the system returned to complainant on  26.9.08. But the defects continued to exist and further more the battery charge is also not in proper condition. All this is happened due to the low quality of the product and poor workmanship and service provided by 2^nd opposite party. It cannot be preceded with this product in the present condition. So he sent legal notice on 23.10.08 requesting to give brand new laptop or to pay the purchase amount taking back the alleged defective laptop. But opposite parties did not send even a reply. Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties 1 and 3 appeared and filed version. 2^nd opposite party remained absent and subsequently declared Ex-party. Opposite parties 1 and 3 field version separately. The content of the version filed by the 1st opposite party is as follows: 1^st opposite party is the authorized dealer of 3^rd opposite party. This opposite party is entrusted sales only and services are to be done by the authorized agencies. This opposite party installed the software which ever suggested by the complainant prior to the delivery of the product. First opposite party is not authorised to look into the hard ware complaints during the warranty period. If any unauthorized service personnel opens the laptop the warranty of the laptop will be at state. It is true that complainant has approached this opposite party with complaint. The service part has to be done by the authorized service agents and not by the dealer. 2^nd opposite party is one of such agencies and complainant was directed to contact authorized agency and it is understood that the complainant contacted 2^nd opposite party for rectification. This opposite party can replace the laptop only if the manufacturer advises to do so. This opposite party has no knowledge whether complainant has lost any data or not. Liability if any it is second opposite party who is answerable for that.

          3^rd opposite party filed version separately. The brief contents of the version of 3^rd opposite party are as follows: Manufacturing of personal computers, Laptop etc. are one of the ventures of 3^rd opposite party. The products manufactured by 3^rd opposite party are of good quality and its service network extends prompt service to its consumers through out the country. 1^st opposite party had carried out repairs on two occasions. The hard disc and the mother board of the system were also seen replaced. If the complainant has any genuine complaint the company 3^rd  opposite party has no problem in redressing the same. The company has an efficient complaint Redressals Department and customer care centers with 24 hours toll free numbers. In the present case it was found that there were no complaints lodged by the complainant with 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party is happy to attend the grievance and to provide all after sales customer care support to the complainant as per the warranty terms. Complaint is filed only for an unjust enrichment. He is not entitled for any relief. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in

     the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties. There is no oral evidence on the  side of opposite parties.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a laptop from 1^st opposite party for `32,415. The system became defective within a short period of purchase. It was repaired but the defect continued to be in existence. The condition of the battery charge also became defective. It is caused due to low quality material. Legal notice was sent to both parties. But none of them sent even a reply. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased the laptop manufactured by 3^rd  opposite party M/s. Hewlette. The ultimate case of the 1^st  opposite party is that the liabilities cannot be shouldered by the 1^st opposite party alone. 2^nd  opposite party remained exparte. 3^rd opposite party took a position that no complaint was placed before them and if there is any genuine complaintthe company is ready to redress the same.

          It can be seen that Ext.A1 Tax invoice issued by1st opposite party dated 4.7.08 prove that the alleged laptop and its accessories were purchased by complainant from 1^st opposite party for an amount of `32,415. Ext.A2 dt.4.7.08 produced as payment receipt. Ext.A3 is the job sheet dated 1.9.08 recorded complaint of ‘some time power off’ complaint reported. Ext.A4 dated 17.9.08 is another job sheet. It reveals that adaptor work was done. Ext.A3 and A4 proves that the lap top became defective and two repairs were done under the opposite parties. Complainant alleges that the defects still persisting. Complainant also alleges that the hard disc of the computer has been replaced without his consent and thereby that has sustained many personal data’s and valuable projects that caused much loss and hardship to the complainant.

          The facts of the case and Exts.A3 and 4 reveals that the lap top became defective within a short period of purchase. It is true that 3^rd opposite party has expressed their readiness to redress the grievances of the complainant. It has also stated that they were always ready and prepared to redress the grievances. But when complainant sent legal notice that was ignored. The dealer did not take initiative to find a solution. 3^rd opposite party contended that they have an efficient complaint  Redressal Department and customer care centers with 24 hours toll free numbers. But even after receiving legal notice there was no attempt on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 to take up the matter before opposite party and to answer the notices of the complainant. They have not also guided the complainant to make use of redressal department. Such well established   net work were if  set up by the 3^rd opposite party it should have been definitely known to opposite parties 1 and 2 and it is their obligation to lead the complainant and take  up the matter before 3^rd opposite party to get redressed the grievance of the complainant. Ext.A7 (a) and Ext.A7 (b) proves that legal notice was sent to opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are well aware of the existence of efficient set up of  3^rd opposite party for the redressal of  grievances of consumers. Under such circumstances keeping silence even after getting the legal notice undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service and the set up of 3^rd opposite party in effect cannot be considered an effective measure so as to attend the consumers in need. Ext.B1 manual cannot be considered as a proved document. It is a Photostat copy and no witness examined to mark the document. Anyhow the liabilities of opposite parties do not fade away even if such manual is issued to complainant. Nothing has come out in evidence that there is any violation of terms and conditions on the part of complainant that has taken away the complainant’s right to get his defective laptop rectified.

          In the light of the above discussion and taking into account the available documents we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the injury caused to complainant. Hence it is ordered the 1^st opposite party, the auhtorised dealer to take back the laptop and to pay the purchase price of  ` 32,415 together with cost of `1000. On execution 1^st opposite party shall be entitled to recover the amount from opposite parties 2 and 3. Thus issue No.1 to 3 is answered in favour of complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the   opposite parties to take back the defective Lap top and to pay the purchase price of  ` 32415 (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Four hundred and fifteen only) together with a sum of  `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceedings  to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. At the first instant 1^st opposite party is ordered to take back the lap top and to pay the amount. On payment 1^st opposite party shall be entitled to recover the amount from opposite parties 2 and 3. Ultimately 3^rd opposite party is liable to reimburse the amount paid by other opposite parties. In case 1^st opposite party fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time complainant is at liberty to recover the amount from anyone of the opposite parties after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                          Sd/-                     Sd/-                   Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1.Tax invoice dt.4.7.08 issued by OP OP

 A2.Payment receipt dt.4.7.08 issued by OP

 A3.Copy of the job sheet dt. 1.9.08 issued by OP

 A4. Copy of the job sheet dt. 17.9.08 issued by OP

 A5. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OPs

A6. Postal receipts

A7. Postal AD cards

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.Copty of the manual of world wide limited warranty and technical

    support of Compaq products

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Uthaman

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

                  /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.