2. CIDI,
2nd Floor, C Block,
Unity Building, JC Road,
Nagarathpeth, Bengaluru,
Karnataka ……Opposite Party 2
3. Digiwiz,
MSI Laptop Services,
Shop no 5. Upper Ground,
El-Capitan Center, Mapusa,
Goa 403507 ……Opposite Party 3
Adv Ms. R. Fernandes present for the Complainant at time of hearings and arguments. None present at the time of passing the Judgment.
Adv. S. Malkarnekar present for Opposite Party nos. 1 & 3 at time of hearings and arguments. None present at the time of passing of judgment.
Opposite Party 2 absent
JUDGEMENT
(Per Mr. Jayson Rodrigues, Member)
- This Judgment and Order shall dispose of the Complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “The C.P. Act”).
The brief facts of the case are as under:
- The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant who was a student of B.Tech (Computer Science) alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice in providing a defective laptop and not providing adequate services during the warranty periodby the Opposite Parties (OPs), whereby Opposite Party 1(OP1) is the manufacturer of the Laptop and Opposite Party 2(OP2) and Opposite Party 3(OP3) are the authorized service centers in Bangalore and Mapusa Goa respectively.
- The case of the Complainant is that, this complaint involves a B.Tech student who purchased a MSI GV Series Core i7 8th Gen (16 GB/1 T8 HDO/128 G8 SSD/Windows 10 Home/ 6GB Graphics) GV62 8RE-050IN) Gaming Laptop with a two-year warranty for INR 89,990/- through Flipkart on 11/10/2018. The Complainant experienced issues with the laptop's HDD, panel, and audio jack in July 2019. As there was no service center in Goa, where the Complainant was at the time, the laptop was taken to an authorized service center in Bangalore on 20/07/2019, and returned on 06/08/2019, after repairs were made under warranty. The Complainant then traveled to UK for a job search and encountered the same issues with the laptop, as well as heating issues and software malfunction. However, he did not send it to the service center in the UK and instead brought it back to India. The Complainant went to Kuwait for a job search in the meantime and returned to Goa in February 2020. Although he learned of a service center in Mapusa, the Complainant was unable to give the laptop for repairs due to the lockdown. The laptop was eventually sent to the Mapusa service center on 01/08/ 2020, and returned on 26/10/2020, but the issues persisted, and the Complainant returned it to the service center on 04/11/2020. On 04/12/ 2020, the Complainant refused to pick up the laptop from the service center, stating that he wanted a proper replacement as he could not keep sending the laptop for repairs. The Complainant's father was in constant contact with the company's Manager, Mr. Ravi Sharma, regarding the issue. The Manager eventually gave the father the contact number of Mr. Sandeep Singh, who promised to replace the laptop. Before accepting the replacement, the Complainant asked if the replacement would be a brand-new laptop in a sealed package and with a complete warranty. On 25/12/2020, the Complainant was informed that the replacement would not be a box piece, but an opened laptop with limited warranty period. The company's address was not provided despite repeated requests from the Complainant. Therefore, this complaint was filed.
- Complainant after facing inconvenience has come forward to this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with this complaint claiming the following reliefs:
(a) The OPs be directed to hand over a brand new box packed laptop of the same specifications or the latest model to the Complainant with the two year warranty period as mentioned in the Invoice;
(b) Alternately, the OP1 be directed to pay the entire amount of ₹89,990/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till the date of complaint and from the date of complaint till date of payment;
(c) For an interest on the said amount from the date of order till the realization of the payment to the Complainant;
(d) For an amount of ₹ 15,000/- that the Complainant had to spend on his travel to and from Bangalore;
(e) For an amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- as compensation for the physical, financial and mental agony undergone by the Complainant;
(f) For the costs of this petition;
(g) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;
- The defense of OP1 and OP3 is that,while the OP1 had provided a laptop with the required specifications and warranty to the Complainant, the service center had repaired the laptop under warranty as per their responsibility. The complaint was regarding the malfunctioning of a laptop, which was purchased by the Complainant in 2018 whereby the Complainant alleged that the laptop had manufacturing defects and the service provided by the OPs was deficient and the OPs stated that they had resolved all the issues with respect to the malfunctioning of the laptop and handed over the repaired laptop to the Complainant. The OPs also denied that there were any manufacturing defects in the laptop and alleged that the issues were deliberately caused by the Complainant. The OPs further stated that the Complainant was abusing the laptop and had used it for two years beyond the warranty period. The OPs denied some specific allegations made by the Complainant, such as telling the Complainant to take the laptop to Bangalore service center for diagnosis and repair purpose. The OPs also denied that they had promised to replace the laptop with a brand new sealed packed laptop with two years warranty. The OPs alleged that the Complainant was taking advantage of the law for his ulterior motive and was deceiving this Hon'ble Consumer Commission. The OPs have admitted that out of good faith and goodwill only to the satisfaction of the Complainant and to avoid any further complications or controversy, the OP assured the Complainant’s father Mr. Alfredo Pereira to replace the said laptop with a laptop of higher specification along with 3 months repair warranty i.e. extended up for 3 months from 13/10/2020 till 12/01/2021 after the expiry of the original warranty period 12/10/2020. The OPs also alleged that the Complainant was abusive towards them and that the emails exchanged between the Complainant's father and the OPs were in admissible in law since the father was not the customer or direct consumer of the OPs. In conclusion, the OPs denied any deficiency in their service and alleged that the Complainant was trying to extort monies and a brand new laptop free of cost from them.
- The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by the OPs in providing a defective laptop and not providing adequate services during the warranty period. The Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to provide a replacement of the laptop with a new laptop and for compensation for the loss suffered by him.
- The Complainant has examined himself by filing Affidavit-in-evidence in support of the complaint. He has produced the following documents:
-
2. Email conversations at Exhibit ‘B’(colly)
- After considering the pleadings and hearing the parties, the following points arise for consideration:
- POINT 1: Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by providing a defective laptop and not providing adequate services during the warranty period?
- The OPs have not denied that the Complainant had purchased the laptop from OP1 with a two-year warranty. It is also not denied that the Complainant faced problems with the laptop, for which he had approached the service centers of the OPs. The Complainant has further stated that he is facing difficulties with the laptop multiple times and had to frequently plead for help from the OPs especially during the important job hunt phase of his Tech carrier and being a tech-savvy IT professional with strong views on laptop performance, he would never deliberately mishandle his own laptop.
- The OPs have stated that the Complainant had failed to take appropriate action in time to get the laptop repaired and that he had used the laptop for a considerable period before complaining of malfunctions. The OPs further submitted that the Complainant had failed to provide any evidence of the expenditure incurred by him for traveling to Bangalore for repair. The OPs have further stated that they are willing to replace the laptop with a refurbished one.
- No expert report evidence was produced by the Complainant to prove that that the laptop suffered from manufacturing defects. However, it may be stated that when the complaint was pending before this Commission no expert of the OPs had examined the laptop in question and submitted a detailed report either with regards to the actual and factual condition of the laptop. In the absence of any expert evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the laptop in question, suffered from any inherent manufacturing defects however, in view of the foregoing observations and the OPs willingness to replace the laptop with a refurbished laptop with limited extended warranty establishes that the laptop does have defects.
- After considering the complaint, the OPs' written version, and the arguments advanced, we find that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine and that the OPs have failed to provide proper quality service to eliminate all the issues. It is clear from the records that the Complainant had purchased the Laptop with a two-year warranty, and the same was under warranty when the problems were reported. However, the OPs have made every effort to rectify the problem with the laptop but have been unable to do sowell to eliminate the root causes of the problem.
- We feel that it is the duty of the manufacturer as well as service center pursuant to the sale of the valuable laptop to offer repairs or removal of defects of the laptop to satisfy the consumer with performance worthiness and a defect less laptop. Whenever a consumer purchases a brand new laptop the minimum expectation is that he would not have any inconvenience and would not have to go to the service center off and on for removing one defect or the other at the cost of expenses, time and physical discomfort and if the consumer takes the laptop on several occasions and the defect is of such nature which is irreversible and cannot be rectified then the mental agony, emotional sufferings, physical discomfort he suffers is unimaginable.
- Rule 6 (3) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 reads as under:
“No seller offering goods or services through a Market place e-commerce entity shall refuse to take back goods, or withdraw or discontinue services purchased or agreed to be purchased, or refuse to refund consideration, if paid, if such goods or services are defective, deficient or spurious, or if the goods or services are not of the characteristics or features as advertised or as agreed to …” refers also to duties of sellers on market places.If a laptop company, promises piece-to-piece replacement of its laptop if any defect arises. If such promise by the laptop company is misleading, then the laptop company is said to adopt an "unfair trade practice".
- The understanding of the word "consumer" is of paramount importance because it is a key through which substantial remedies under this CP Act can be opened. A potential consumer is as good as consumer, within the scope of the C.P. Act. If the Complainant avail of a service then the Complainant’s father with the consent of the Complainant too can become a beneficiary of such serviceandif there is deficiency in service either Complainant or Complainant’s father can file a consumer complaint under the C.P. Act.
- Thus, it is clear that the OPs have failed to provide adequate quality services during the warranty period, which amounts to deficiency in services. It is also an unfair trade practice on their part to provide a defective laptop and then not providing adequate quality services during the warranty period to endurethe performance of the laptop.
- POINT 2: Whether the Complainant is entitled to a replacement of the laptop with a new laptop and compensation for the loss suffered by him?
- We find that the Complainant purchased the laptop in 2018, which was under warranty, and despite having encountered issues, the laptop was not repaired correctly, resulting in a need for repeated repairs.The OPs stated that the said laptop is ISO Certified and it has undergone various quality control tests but has not placed on record any evidence or any quality check report. Even after repairs under warranty a full technical service diagnostic report of the laptop is not placed on record. The Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to provide a replacement of the laptop with a new laptop and for compensation for the loss suffered by him. The OPs have not denied the defects in the laptop and have also offered a replacement of the laptop. However, they have stated that the replacement laptop will not be a box piece, but an opened laptop and there will be no full warranty on the same, except for the balance warranty period.
- The OPs have admitted to replace the said laptop with a laptop of higher specification along with 3 months repair warranty i.e. extended up for 3 months from 13/10/2020 till 12/01/2021 after the expiry of the original warranty period 12/10/2020.
The e-mail dtd 5th Nov 2020 from “As per confirmation in trail we added 3 month extended WTY of your unit”
The e-mail dtd 25th Dec 2020 from “As all details already informed by Mr. Sandeep telephonically to you that replacement unit will not be box pack …..”
- The Complainant has stated that he requires a new laptop in sealed package with complete warranty and not an opened laptop without warranty. The Complainant is justified in his demand for a new laptop in sealed package.The OPs have not provided any satisfactory explanation as to why they cannot provide a new laptop in sealed package, especially when they have admitted the defects in the laptop by agreeing to a laptop replacement.
- After complying with the procedure as prescribed under The C.P. Act, Clause (b) of Section 39(1) stipulates that the District Commission shall order the Opposite Party to replace the defective goods with new goods of similar description and the replaced goods shall be free from any defects. Clause (c) of Section 39(1) stipulates that the District Commission shall order the Opposite Party to return to the Complainant the price of the defective goods or the charges paid by the Complainant for the deficient services. The District Commission can also order for the interest to be paid on price or charges as it may deem fit.
- In view of the above, the Complainant is entitled to a replacement of the laptop with a new laptop of the same specifications or equivalent specification as the earlier one,in sealed package with limited warranty.
- During the pendency of these proceedings the Complainant was requestedby OPs to collect the laptop given for repairs. However, the Complainant refused to take the laptop stating that it was a defective machine. In case the same was later forcibly deliveredto the Complainant against his wishes, this Commission directs that the Complainant should return the faulty laptop to OPs after the OPs comply to this order.
- The Commission does not find the Complainant's request for compensation of ₹.1,00,000/-and ₹ 15,000/-to be justified as he has failed to produce any evidence, monetary receipts, expert report, etc. to support the claim. Moreover, the Complainant had been using the laptop for approximately two years. The Complainant is further also responsible for delay in approaching the service centerresulting in the expiry of the warranty period. Therefore, the request for compensation is declinedas Complainant may well be receiving a new laptop or refund.
- In light of the above discussion, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Complaint is partly allowed in favor of the Complainant. The OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to immediately intimate and provide the Complainant with a new laptop of the same or equivalent model with a limited warranty of at least 3 months within two months from receipt of this order.
- Dispute between the parties should be settled once for all and therefore refund of the laptop cost with interest is the only feasible solution if replacement of defective laptop is not possible. If due to some reasons a new laptop of the same model or anequivalent model as the earlier one, in sealed package with limited warranty of at least 3 months is not provided, then refund of ₹. 89,990/- (Rupees eighty-nine thousand nine hundred ninety only) will have to be processed to the Complainant with 10% per annum interest from the date of purchase till final payment.
-
- The complaint is partly allowed.
- OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to immediately intimate and provide the Complainant with a new laptop of the same or equivalent model with a limited warranty of at least 3 months within two months from receipt of this order, OR refund ₹ 89,990/- (Rupees eighty-nine thousand nine hundred ninety only) to the Complainant with 10% per annum interest from the date of purchase till final payment.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced in open Court. Proceedings closed.
(Mr. Sanjay Motiram Chodankar)
President
(Ms. Nelly H. Pereira e D’Silva)
Member
(Mr. Jayson Rodrigues)
Member
