THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.500/2012

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2018

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                       Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                     :  Member

                                                                      Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.     :  Member

ORDER

Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:             

This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that, he had purchased a Dell XPS 1330 laptop manufactured by the 1^st opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party on 17/01/2009 for Rs.56,165/-. The system is having one year warranty and he had taken an extended warranty for further two years by paying an additional amount of Rs.22,110/-. But to his dismay the laptop started complaints within 3 months of its purchase. As per his complaints through e-mails the technicians of the opposite parties came and repaired the system many times and had replaced all most all its parts like motherboard, CD drive, HDD, LCD panel etc. during the time of repairs. But even after all these repairs and replacement of parts the complaints persisted and finally in the month of March 2012, he could not even open the system and it stopped functioning.

It is stated by the petitioner that, since the defects were not cured completely even after repeated repairs and replacement of many parts, it is clear that the system is having some inherent manufacturing defect and so he demanded replacement of the system or refund of its purchase price through e-mail to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties as per the warranty conditions but even after repeated requests they were not ready to comply any of his requests or even cared to respond to his demands. The 3^rd opposite party also had forwarded his complaint made before him to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties with request to replace the system or to refund its price. Since there was no response from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to his demands through e-mails, he had caused to issue a lawyers notice to the opposite parties narrating all the facts and repeating his demands. The notice was duly served to the opposite parties but they were not replied to that lawyer notice also. It is further stated that though they have not replied to that notice, later the opposite parties contacted him and his counsel over phone and through e-mails assuring that they will repair the system properly by taking the set to their repair centre, Bangalore. They also assured that if the complaints persists even after repair at Bangalore, they will replace the set. Believing these words he delivered the set to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for repair at their Bangalore Centre but after repair at there also the defects were not rectified. So again he demanded replacement or refund through e-mails and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 expressed their willingness to replace the defective system with a new one but they have imposed certain conditions for replacement that he had to pay the sale tax and there would not be any warranty for the new set and he has to pay the difference in the value of the new system. Since these conditions are against the warranty terms, this was not acceptable to him and his disagreement was informed to the opposite parties through e-mails also.

The petitioner further stated that, he has not used the laptop conveniently at any time after its purchase due to its various complaints. It is also stated that the opposite parties are also convinced of the manufacturing defect of the laptop otherwise they will not offer replacement. So they are bound to replace the system unconditionally. He had paid Rs.56,165/- as price of the system and had paid an additional amount of Rs.22,110/- for the extended warranty. It is stated that, the sale of a defective laptop to a customer is unfair trade practice and the indifferent and negligent attitude of the opposite parties in replacing the defective laptop with a defect free new one or to refund its purchase price even after repeated requests amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The said act of the opposite parties caused huge financial loss, much mental stress and strain and such other hardships to him. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties either to replace the damaged laptop with a defect free new one of the same specifications or to refund its purchase price with 12% interest per annum and also compensation for his sufferings and cost of the proceedings.

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed joint version with the following contentions. It is contended that the petitioner had filed this petition out of pure greed and nefarious intentions to extract some amounts illegally from them as compensation and only to cause harassment to them and to spoil their reputation among the public. This petition is also filed concealing the material facts from this Forum.

The opposite parties admitted the purchase of the said laptop by the petitioner through the 3^rd opposite party as stated in the petition. It is also admitted that the system is provided with one year warranty and after the expiry of the warranty, the petitioner had extended the warranty for further two years by paying Rs.22,110/-. The duration of the extended warranty was upto 30/04/2012. It is stated that the 1^st complaint reported on 23/04/2009 by the petitioner was that vertical lines appearing on the LCD screen. From the pictures of the LCD sent by the petitioner to the 1^st opposite party, it was found that the LCD was cracked. Their technical support arranged engineers and they visited the petitioner and replaced the LCD and LCD cable on 13/05/2009 and resolved the issues and the petitioner was fully satisfied also. But on 12/06/2009 the petitioner reported another complaint as the CD drive was ejecting automatically. Their engineers replaced the CD drive on 22/06/2009. Then again on 24/07/2009 the petitioner made another complaint that the system was not powering on. On diagnosis it is found that the problem was with the motherboard and the motherboard was also replaced on 27/07/2009. Thus they have always resolved all the issues to the satisfaction of the petitioner without delay and the petitioner had never contacted them after the month of July, 2009 with any issues and this shows that the system was working properly. Only after three years of purchase of the system the petitioner had reported another complaint that the system was not powering on and adamantly demanded replacement of the laptop or refund of its price and since they could not abide by the said demand of the petitioner, they denied the said demand. It is further stated that as a gesture of goodwill they have collected the set from the petitioner for inspection and diagnose at their Bangalore Service Centre. On inspection there, it is found that the system was working fine and so it was sent back to the petitioner but after that also on 26/07/212, the petitioner again made complaint that the system was not functioning properly. It was found that the petitioner was looking at getting a Dell laptop model No. XPS142 in place of the disputed laptop but this was not acceptable for them but even then they informed the petitioner that if he has to pay the difference amount of the new laptop and the old one, then they will replace the old one but the petitioner was not willing for that instead he demanded unconditional replacement. They received the legal notice of the petitioner on 07/05/2012 and thereafter they tried to call the petitioner several times but he was not reachable. Even now they are ready to replace the system if the petitioner is ready to pay the difference amount of a new laptop or they are ready to repair the system as per the terms and conditions in the warranty card and to extend the warranty for another six months also. There is no manufacturing defect with the laptop as alleged. The demand for replacement without paying the difference in the value of a new set or refund of the purchase price after 3 years of its purchase is not fair or admissible. It is further submitted that they are providing world class service to their customers and they have complied with every terms and conditions in the warranty and had provided the best possible service to the petitioner also. All other allegations of the petitioner were denied as false and vexatious. There is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on their side and so they are not liable to replace the system or to refund its purchase price or to compensate the petitioner in any manner and the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.

The 3^rd opposite party in his version also admitted the purchase of the said laptop by the petitioner through him. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached him within three months of purchase of the laptop with frequent complaints. He had also sent complaint to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties requesting to cure the defects. As manufacturers of the system, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable for the defects of the laptop if any and so they are liable to pay any amount if payable to the petitioner and he is in no way liable for any of these matters. There is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on his side and so prayed to dismiss the petition with his cost.

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext. A1 to A11 and deposition of PW1, the petitioner.

There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the laptop by the petitioner or its purchase price. The opposite parties also admitted the extension of the warranty for a further period of two years by paying an additional amount of Rs.22,110/- by the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, laptop purchased through the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party started frequent complaints within two, three months of its purchase. This complaints were reported to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through e-mails. The copy of the e-mail correspondence between the petitioner and the opposite parties were produced and was marked and Ext. A3, A4, A5 and A6. Based on the complaints made through e-mails, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had repaired the system many times and during these process all most all its parts like the motherboard, CD drive, HDD, LCD panel etc. were replaced also. But even after all these repairs and replacement of parts the defects persisted and the opposite parties are not able to cure the defects permanently. Due to its repeated complaints and repairs, he could not use the system conveniently at any time. So the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are bound to replace the damaged laptop with a defect free new one or to return its purchase price with interest and also to pay compensation for his sufferings. The petitioner produced the copy of “Repair Order Form” 10 in numbers in support of his averments and was marked as Ext. A8 series. Ext. A8 series shows the repair works done by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in the laptop and the parts replaced during these process within the warranty period. Ext. A5 is the copy of e-mail issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties dated 04/03/2010 narrating the complaints of the laptop and requesting them to look into the matter seriously and provide any solution with prior consideration to this  case. In Ext. A5 it is written that “Mr. Rejimon brought the laptop at January 2009 and his warranty expires at 15 January 2010. But between this period he faced so many complaints with this laptop. 3 times motherboard changed. Display and CD drive also changed.” It is also reported in Ext. A5 that the customer is totally dissatisfied with the product.

Thus Ext. A8 series and Ext. A5 proved the case of the petitioner that the system was suffering from various complaints, that too within the warranty period and the opposite parties had repaired the system many times and had replaced many of its parts within this short period. The opposite parties also admitted that they have repaired the system on 13/05/2009, 22/06/2009, 27/07/2009 and had replaced its motherboard, CD drive, HDD, LCD panel etc, but according to them, they have repaired the defects completely and now the system is in good working condition without any issues. But the said statement of the opposite parties that the system is in good working condition now is disproved by Ext. A6 e-mail letter issued to them by the 3^rd opposite party dated 23/03/2012. Wherein it is stated that “I am here to point a serious issue for my customer. He has purchased Dell XPS 1330 laptop, upgraded to 2 year complete cover extended warranty 30 months behind. But he cannot use this laptop properly, every 2-3 months it was complaint and all most all parts was replaced more times like motherboard, drive HDD, LCD panel. But still now again its complaint. Not working……… ……… Now its total about 10-15 complaints and still now you cannot clear the complaint permanently. From all this, we conclude that dell is not capable to cure the problem permanently as we have given maximum chances. Dell has no proper support team. So no more chances is left. Now refund all the money spend by my customer for purchasing laptop and warranty upgrading as early as possible as this one is not a useful one. We want a reply soon or we have to go to other source.”

So, from the evidence it is found that the laptop was suffering from various complaints within few months of its purchase itself and the opposite parties have repaired the system many time and had replaced most of its parts. Ext. A6 dated 23/03/2012 also shows that till filing of this petition the system is not working. From this, it is evident that the system is having inherent manufacturing defects which could not be cured by repairs or replacement of parts. So the opposite parties ought to have replaced the defective system with a defect free new one or to refund its purchase price without causing inconveniences to the petitioner. But they have not done so. The indifferent and negligent attitude of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in this regard, in our view, amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part. Since the 3^rd opposite party had only assisted the petitioner in purchasing the laptop through online, he is not responsible for the defects of the system and so he is absolved from the liability of paying any compensation to the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner was examined as PW1. In cross, the petitioner also had stated that he is having no complaint against the 3^rd opposite party and he is not demanding any reliefs from the 3^rd opposite party.

In the result, the following order is passed.

The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are ordered to refund Rs.78,275/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand two hundred seventy five only) (which includes the purchase price of the laptop and the amount spent for taking extended warranty) along with Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for the sufferings and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 can take back the defective laptop on the compliance of this order.

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2018

Date of filing: 17/11/2012

SD/-MEMBER                          SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Ownership certificate dated 06/01/2009

A2. Tax invoice dated 30/04/2010

A3. Copy of the e-mail issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party

A4. Reply mail received from the 1^st opposite party

A5. Copy of the e-mail issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

A6. Copy of e-mail issued by 3^rd opposite party to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties

A7. Copy of lawyer notice along with acknowledgement card and postal receipt

A8. Repair order form (10 in No. series)

A9. Quotation (9 in No. series)

A10. Warranty terms and conditions

A11. Copy of e-mail issued by 2^nd opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. N.K. Rejimon (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None  

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT