By: Miss. R.K.Madanavally, Member
Facts in brief:-
The complainant had purchased a Laptop worth Rupees 24,500/- from opposite party No2 on 27.8.11. After 3 months of the purchase some defects were developed to the laptop and it was repaired twice from the opposite party No1's shop and the defect was not rectified and the remedy for the above defect is to change the Base cover of the laptop. But opposite parties are not ready for the same. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party No.1 denied the contention of the complainant that the above said laptop was repaired twice from their shop. According to opposite party No1, they will issue receipt for any complaint which was registered under their shop. As per their register, the complaint was registered by one Neethu , in their shop on 31/7/12 and opposite party No1 issued a receipt for the same also.
The opposite party No1 informed the complainant that it was a 'physical damage' and hence the complainant has to pay repair charge. According to opposite party No1, the complaint was caused by the negligence of the complainant himself. As per the version filed by the opposite party No1, opposite party No2, the manufacturer was impleaded as supplemental opposite party No2.
The opposite party No2 also filed detailed version by denying the entire averments in the complaint. They submitted that, no proof of manufacturing defect was adduced by the complainant and hence the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed. Further, they contended that the opposite party No1 is only a re-seller and they have no authority to repair the laptop or they are not competent to provide any after sale service. Their warranty details are provided in their website.
The complaint is silent regarding the date on which the complainant noted the complaint. So also the defects were also not mentioned. So also the complainant had not taken any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect and so the complaint is not maintainable. According to opposite party No2, if there was any complaint to the laptop the complainant ought to have approached any authorized service centre. Instead, the complainant is still using the laptop and keeping the same. There is no proof for which the complainant had ever contacted with opposite party No2. So negligence is upon the complainant himself and so he is not entitled to get any relief. The complaint is silent regarding the losses and grievances suffered by the complainant, further, no relief is sought against the opposite party No2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The main issues araised for our consideration are;
Whether the opposite parties are deficient in their service?
If so relief and cost.
Point No1 and 2
The complainant was examined as PW1. Apart form the oral evidences Ext. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. According to opposite party No2, Ext. A2 and A3 were issued to different persons. The complainant while examined answered satisfactorily for the same. Opposite party No2 alleges that, now the laptop is working fine. But at the time of cross-examination by opposite party No2, the complainant deposed that “ Ext. A3 പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് now system working fineഎന്നു പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു കൂടെ charging portനു complaint ഉണ്ട് എന്നും പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു opposite party No2 challenge that Ext. A2 and A3 is not issued to the complainant. In the version filed by opposite party No2, they submitted that opposite party No1 is not their authorised service centre. But opposite party No1 has no such a case. More over opposite party No1 submitted that, the engineer from lenovo company examined the laptop and informed that he is ready to repair the laptop if the complainant is paying the repair charge.
The opposite party No2 is still on the point that the complainant has not produced the warranty card and the manufacturing defect is not proved etc. They submitted that the laptop was not send for any expert opinion and hence manufacturing defect is not proved and so Section 13(b) of Consumer Protection Act is not complied .
Though the warranty card is not produced by the complainant, the opposite parties were having no case that alleged complaint was happened after the warranty period. Several rulings are produced by opposite party No2 for proving their contentions. We have gone through the decisions filed by opposite party No2. Facts and circumstances in each case may be different. We are of the opinion that the grievances of the complainant should be compensated reasonably.
The oral as well as documentary evidence (Ext. A3) shows that still the laptop is having some complaints. Either party has produced the warranty card/warranty manual before us. In the Ext. A3, it was shown that changing port was defective which is not covered under warranty.
It can be noted that the complaint was filed within a period of one year. The warranty period will be for more than one year. So it is obvious that the defects occurred within the warranty period. Any how, the equipment is still in the possession of the complainant. So we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of Justice. The computer was purchased from the opposite party No1.
In the above circumstances, we order that, the opposite party No1 shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10000/-( Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to cost.
Dated this 4th day of August , 2014
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant, N.V.Sundaran
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of retail invoice issued by first opposite party, dated 27-08-2011
Ext.A2 : Receipt of Charging Point Complainant issued by first opposite party, dated 10-04-12
Ext A3 : Service Call Report issued by Redington (India) Limited
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
