Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 28.09.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the full price of said laptop i.e. Rs. 45,500/- along with 18% interest per annum from 01.02.2010 till full and final payment of such amount.
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the full price of said laptop i.e. Rs. 15,315.67/- along with 18% interest per annum from 06.04.2011 till full and final payment of such amount.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a Laptop from opposite party no. 4 for his personal use. After the next day of purchase, the aforesaid laptop became completely dead. Thereafter, he reported this matter to Bhopal Service Station on 04.02.2010. The service center informed the complainant that mother board was defective and issued DOA (Death on Arrival) letter dated 04.02.2010. The complainant thereafter visited opposite party no. 4 at Delhi on 20.02.2010 and on the basis of the Bhopal service center report, the opposite party no. 4 replaced the defective Laptop with a new set of Laptop and also issued a new retail invoice cum delivery challan with NILL amount because the complainant had earlier purchased the defective laptop from opposite party no. 4 after paying Rs. 45,500/-. After working with the replaced laptop, the complainant found that it was also not working properly and thereafter the defect was brought to the notice of service center whose engineer/technician after examining the laptop informed the complainant that the aforesaid Laptop will become defect free after some period which never happened. Thereafter the complainant lodged the complaint with opposite party no. 3 which is authorized service center at Patna where case ID were registered vide case ID no. 4622636549 and the Patna service center after repairing the Laptop delivered to the complainant on 26.11.2010 as will appear from annexure – 3. After repair by opposite party no. 3 the complainant found that the aforesaid Laptop was not properly functioning, then he again informed the Patna service center on 09.03.2011 and after laps of more than 13 days opposite party no. 3 informed the complainant to replace the processor and system board of the laptop for which opposite party no. 3 gave an estimate of Rs. 26,700/- because at that time the Laptop was out of warranty. The complainant thereafter expressed his unwillingness to pay the aforesaid amount. Opposite party no. 3 suggested him to pay only cost of processor i.e. Rs. 13,273.26/- as will appear from annexure – 4 and 4/A.
It is further case of the complainant that on 06.04.2011 the said Laptop was received in working condition after payment of Rs. 15,315.65/- as will appear from annexure – 5. However, at the expiry of only 3 days i.e. on 09.04.2011 the aforesaid laptop become out of order and was not functioning at all. Again the problem was reported to service center at Patna i.e. opposite party no. 3 and the service center after repair returned the aforesaid laptop to the complainant on 10.04.2011. however, service center stated that out of 3GB RAM, 1GB RAM created problem and hence the aforesaid RAM was removed from the Laptop and now the Laptop has only 2GB RAM as will appear from annexure – 6. However, again after expiry of a week same problem occurred again and thereafter the aforesaid laptop was submitted to opposite party no. 3 for repair and the matter was reported to higher authority of HP at Kolkatta through E – mail. Thereafter, the complainant received the Laptop from opposite party no. 3 after replacement of processor as will appear from annexure – 7 series. The complainant again submitted his Laptop on 01.07.2011 for the same defect. The opposite party no. 3 opened a new case for the repair of defective laptop and suggested to replace the system board and processor for which the complainant has to pay huge amount and received his dead laptop on 10.08.2011 as will appear from annexure – 8. In this connection, the complainant has sent several E – mail to higher authority Arunima Ghosh between 1st July to 27th July 2011 but in reply the opposite party no. 3 closed the old complaint and opened a new complaint and gave estimate for repair to the tune of Rs. 16,039/- as will appear from annexure – 9 series. The complainant was informed that processor and board both will have to replaced.
It is further case of the complainant that since the date of purchase and its replacement, the aforesaid laptop did not function properly although the complainant have to pay Rs. 15,315.65/- to opposite party no. 3 as will appear from annexure – 5. Now the complainant has been put to harassment and has filed this case with a prayer contained in Para – 18 of complaint petition.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 written statement has been filed denying all the allegation of the complainant. It has been further asserted that the allegation of defect has been made without relying on any expert report as contained in Section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
It has been further asserted that as the laptop has been used for commercial purpose hence the complainant is not Consumer U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
It is also stated that the laptop became defective due to its use by the complainant in negligent manner.
From record it appears that vide order dated 20.12.2013 the Tamila was declared valid against opposite party no. 3.
Opposite party no. 3 filed its version (written statement) accepting to work for opposite party no. 1 and 2. In Para – 5 of the version (written statement) following facts have been asserted, “the answering opposite party submits that the complainant had approached the service center of this opposite party complaining with the problem in the notebook as reported below: (1) on off, keyboard and shift key not working in the notebook. (2) display problem in the notebook. (3) system automatically shut down. (4) powering on but no display in the notebook.”
“the service engineer of this answering opposite party diagnosed the problem in the notebook during every instant and the observation and rectification was performed as below:”
“in the 1st instance the service engineer replaced the keyboard and revamped the notebook in working condition and delivered the same to the complainant.”
“during 2nd instance, the service engineer found the problem with processor and mother board and hence provided a quotation of Rs. 26,700/- to the complainant since the complainant’s notebook warranty got expired, however on further diagnosis, it was found the problem in the processor of the unit and it was replaced within a very short time through the service charges of Rs. 15,315/- which inclusive of VAT and service tax and revamped the notebook and delivered the same to the complainant.”
“the 3rd instance, the service engineer subjected the notebook and found 1GB RAM having a problem and it was replaced by the service engineer of this opposite party since the notebook is having 2RAM (i.e. Capacity of 1 GB and capacity of 2GB) and the complainant also taken delivery of the notebook in good working condition.”
“the 4th instance, the service engineer diagnosed the notebook and found again the problem with the processor and mother board which were required to be replaced, hence this opposite party provided a quotation towards replacement of processor and mother board under paid basis. However the complainant refused the accept the service and taken delivery of the unit as it was in a same condition.”
It has been further stated that the complainant has no allegation or grievance against opposite party no. 3.
On behalf of the complainant rejoinder has been filed repeating the same fact which he has stated in his complaint petition.
We have gone through the entire record of this case carefully and heard the counsels for opposite party no. 1, 2 and 3 as well as counsel for the complainant. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 4.
The complainant has alleged that since the day of purchase the laptop was not functioning that is why the Bhopal service center issued DOA letter and due to which the laptop was replaced by opposite party no. 4. When the aforesaid laptop again did not work properly the complainant again submitted the laptop to opposite party no. 3 for rectification of the defects. This fact has been also accepted by opposite party no. 3 in Para – 5 of written statement from perusal of which it appears that there were several defects in the laptop and complainant had to pay Rs. 15,315/- as service charges for repair. Several annexures annexed with complaint petition shows that despite repair by opposite party no. 3 the Laptop never functioned properly and as such the complainant has to visit opposite party no. 3 repeatedly for redressal of his grievance and despite paying service charges to opposite party no. 3 the laptop did not functioned properly since the date of purchase till its last date of repairing.
The aforesaid facts clearly shows that the laptop was defective since before the opposite party no. 1 and 2 have admitted the replacement of the laptop. Hence there is no need to get the Laptop examined by expert as stated by opposite party no. 1 and 2.
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased the laptop for his personal use and as such the complainant is covered as a consumer U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
It goes without saying that as the complainant has got repaired his laptop with opposite party no. 3 after paying service charges hence this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
The assertion of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 that no allegation of manufacturing defect can be made without examination by expert as provided U/s 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is academic in this case because the complainant has been able to prove that since the day of purchase the Laptop never functioned and as such it was replaced by opposite party no. 4 after the report of Bhopal service center of opposite party no. 1 and 2. It is also proved that even after replacement and paying service charges to opposite party no. 3the laptop never functioned properly.
No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.
In view of fact and circumstances stated above we find and hold that the aforesaid laptop contained manufacturing defect for which opposite party no. 1 and 2 are responsible because this conduct of opposite party no. 1 and 2 has resulted in deficiency in service.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to refund the price of said laptop i.e. Rs. 45,500/- ( Rs. Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 1 and 2 will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 45,500/- ( Rs. Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred only) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member Member(F) President
