PER SHRI. G.H. RATHOD – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) The Complainant by this complaint has prayed that it be held and declared that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act). It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.56,500/- i.e. cost of the laptop with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of laptop till its realization. The Complainant has also prayed to grant compensation of Rs.10 Lacs to the Complainant for harassment, mental agony and physical inconvenience suffered by him for the period of 9 months. It is also prayed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- be granted as the expenses incurred by the Complainant for approaching to the Opposite Parties, such as traveling, phone calls and by way of correspondence and cost of Rs.50,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses.
2) According to the Complainant, he is talented sound engineer by profession. The nature of his works includes setting up of professional sound equipment at events. The Opposite Party No.1 is the service Centre and Opposite Party No.2 is the shop from where the Complainant has purchased the laptop of the make “HP Pavilion TX 1218 AU.” It is alleged that he purchased the said laptop from Opposite Party No.2 on 08/09/2007 vide Invoice No.1247 for his professional and personal purpose. The Complainant is thus, a consumer under Sec.2(d) of the Act. The copy of invoice is at Exh.‘A’. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 at the time of purchase had assured a warranty of 1 year for the said laptop on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The warranty period was to expire in October, 2008.
3) According to the Complainant, when he brought the aforesaid laptop to his home he was unable to use it for his professional or personal purpose as he was facing multiple problems, such as problems with Sreen Alignment and Bluetooth. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties were aware of the defects in the said laptop, however, they had sold the same to the Complainant with a malafide intension to extract monies from the Complainant. It is submitted that due to the busy schedule of the Complainant, he reported the problems to the Opposite Party No.1 vide Token No.J050110045 on 05/11/2007. The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘B’. The Opposite Party No.1 returned the said laptop to the Complainant on 22/11/2007 and assured the Complainant that the problems were rectified and the mother board and the screen of the said laptop had been replaced and also promised that there would be no such problems with the said laptop in future.
4) It is alleged that after taking the said laptop at home by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1, he found so many defects in the said laptop, such as 1) Faulty Power Switch. 2) Problem with Hard Disk LED. 3) Continuous Hanging of the System. 4) Bluetooth Drivers Missing. 5) Finger Reader not detecting. 6) Touch Screen Alignment Problem. 7) Windows updates failed. The Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1 to solve the aforesaid problems. The Opposite Party No.1 delivered back the said laptop to the Complainant on 28/12/2007 and one Mr. Sohel personally attended to the Complainant and assured him that the problems have been solved. Thereafter also the same problems were faced by the Complainant and the Complainant had to contact several times to Opposite Party No.1 and its representatives who did not properly respond to the complaints regarding the laptop purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.2. It is submitted that after a lengthy procedure of 9 months from the date of purchase of laptop a Complainant was provided with a new laptop having specification number TX1218AU (s/n: CNF7260MVG/ p/n: GN385PA#ACJ). It is alleged that the purpose of providing a new laptop was also not useful for the Complainant as the Opposite Party No.1 had once again provided a laptop which was faulty as the earlier one. It is alleged that thereafter also the Complainant made correspondence by letter dtd.26/06/2008 to the Opposite Party No.1 at its Mumbai address as well as Bangalore. The copy of the said letter was also sent to the Opposite Party No.2 informing them regarding the second faulty laptop. The Opposite Parties did not respond to the letters of the Complainant. It is submitted that the earlier laptop which was purchased by the Complainant on 08/09/2007 was more in the possession of the Opposite Party No.1 than in the possession of the Complainant. The Complainant was deprived of the services of the laptop which he purchased from Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant’s business was hampered and he suffered huge loss of money and reputation due to faulty laptop and irresponsible behavior on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is alleged that the Complainant sent legal notice on 05/07/2008 to the Opposite Parties through his advocate and demanded compensation from them. The copy of which is at Exh.‘F’. The copies of RPAD Receipts are at Exh.‘G’. It is submitted that the Complainant could not use the laptop purchased from the Opposite Party No.2 for a single day. The Complainant also could not use the replaced laptop as it being faulty. The Complainant has therefore, claimed the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
5) The Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.1 being the Company manufacturing personal computers, laptop, etc. it supplies its products in the market for sale through wholesalers through further sale it to the retailer. It is submitted that thus, the Opposite Party No.1 Company has no privity of contract with retailer and has no control over terms of sale by the retailer. It is denied that the Opposite Party No.1 was aware of the defects in the laptop purchased by the Complainant. It is contended that if the Opposite Party No.1 was knowing the defects in the said laptop, the Complainant would never purchased the same from the Opposite Party No.2 as the Complainant is a talented sound engineer by profession. It is contended that the complaints made by the Complainant were attended by the Opposite Party No.1 to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It is denied that the Opposite Party No.1 provided a defective laptop to the Complainant which had a series of problems. It is contended that the Complainant had reinstalled all the programs on his own which had resulted in causing problems to the said laptop and the Opposite Party No.1 was not at all aware and responsible for the said problems that arose in the said laptop because of the said reinstallation. It is contended that maximum issues reported were to TFT. It is submitted that the model has rotating TFT with touch screen and if the same is not used properly is subject to breakdown. It is contended that when the notebook was taken for service there was scratches found on the screen which can be referred from the attached job card dtd.25/02/2008 which is marked as Exh.‘B-1’ in the complaint. It is contended that the issues raised by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 were very much rectified every time when the laptop came for any service. It is also contended that the Opposite Party No.1 had gone ahead and provided a new laptop to the Complainant as replacement. The Opposite Party No.1 thus, denied all the contentions and allegations made by the Complainant and denied that the conduct of the Opposite Party No.1 amounts to a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. According to the Opposite Party No.1, it had provided best after sales services to the Complainant as an when demanded by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 denied the contents of the notice. It is thus, submitted that the Complainant is not entitle to the relies as prayed in the complaint and requested for dismissal of the Complainant.
6) The Opposite Party No.2 also contested the claim made in the complaint by filing the written statement. It is contended that after the laptop was sold by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant, he did not approach to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant was in-touch with Opposite Party No.1 and had somehow managed to get the first laptop replaced with a new laptop. It is submitted that therefore, as far as the first laptop is concerned there is no cause of action at the time of filing of the complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint are specifically denied by the Opposite Party No.2. It is contended that the complaint filed by the Complainant is bogus, false and frivolous and filed with alterative motives for unlawful gains. It is thus, submitted that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
7) The parties to the Complainant filed affidavit in support of their pleadings. All the parties filed their written arguments. We heard the oral arguments of Ld.Advocate Shri. Abhaykumar Jadhav on behalf of Mr.Nikhil Mehta, Advocate for the Complainant. Smt. Gargi Ankola, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinod Juwale, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and Shri. Gaurang Nallwala, Advocate on behalf of Shri. Uday Wavikar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.
8) In the present complaint the Complainant has sought the refund of Rs.56,500/- from the Opposite Parties of the product of laptop which he had purchased from the Opposite Parties. It is the fact that the Opposite Party No.1 replaced new laptop to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the second laptop was also faulty laptop. In the complaint it is alleged that the article in question suffers from manufacturing defect, it is necessary to send the said article for laboratory examination. The Complainant did not make any such attempt after filing of this complaint before this Forum& brought any expert opinion in that regard. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant did not take the said replaced laptop to the Opposite Parties for its repairs necessarily show that the grievance made in the complaint regarding second laptop is totally false and the same cannot be relied upon. It appears from the contention raised in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant had reinstalled all the programs on his own and the said reinstallation of programs have resulted in causing problems to the 1st laptop and the Opposite Party No.1 was not at all aware and responsible for the said problems that arose in the said laptop because of the said reinstallation. In the document at Exh.‘B-1’ dtd.25/02/2008, it is specifically mentioned that when the notebook was taken for service by the Opposite Party No.1 there were scratches found on the screen. Thus, it appears that the problems in the 1st laptop appeared to have been created as the complainant had reinstalled all the programs on his own. From the facts alleged in the complaint as well as in the written statement of the Opposite Party No.1 it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 had tried to give its best service after sale to the Complainant and as the Complainant was not satisfied thereafter also it had replaced the first laptop and provided new laptop to the Complainant. In view of these facts we hold that the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice while dealing with the problems of the laptop which the Complainant had purchased from Opposite Party No.2. It also appears that the Complainant never approached to the Opposite Party No.2 after purchase of the laptop from it. Under such facts and circumstances we hold that the case made out by the Complainant for grant of reliefs mentioned in the complaint is not at all proved against the Opposite Parties. In the result we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and therefore, the following order is passed
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.241/2011 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
