Advcoate Rahul Gandhi for the Complainant

Advocate Ravi Bharadwaj for the Opponent No.1

Opponent No.2 through its Representative

Per Hon’ble Shri. V.P. Utpat, President

                                     JUDGMENT

                                Dated 5^thJune 2014

                This complaint is filed by consumer against Manufacturing Company, Sub-Dealer as well as Service Provider for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Brief facts are as follows-

[1]            Complainant is resident of Pashan, Pune 411 021. Opponent No.1 is the Manufacturing Company and Opponent No.2 is the Sub-Dealer as well as service provider. Complainant is a Scientist of one of the most reputed laboratories in India.  He has decided to purchase Laptop for his daughter, who is student of B.Arch in Mumbai. He approached to Opponent No.2, who is running a multi brand store and purchased Laptop from Opponent No.2 for Rs.62,375/-. Opponent No.2 has given extended warranty by accepting cost of Rs.3375/- from the complainant. The Manufacturing Company has given warranty for one year and Opponent No.2 has given extended warranty for two years. During the period of first year from the purchase certain issues were developed as regards the Laptop.  Complainant took the Laptop to the authorized service partner of the Opponent No.1. Laptop was attended and returned on the same day. Some problems again cropped up after the period of 16 months from the date of purchase i.e. after completion of manufacturer standard warranty, within the extended warranty period.  Again the Laptop was taken to the service partner of the Opponent No.1 There were problems with Display unit, CD Rom Drive and the Speaker.  Then the Laptop was taken to the Opponent No.2 as the first year warranty was over.  Opponent No.2 asked the complainant to leave the Laptop on 13/6/2010.  Complainant had asked the Opponent No.2 about the repairs of Laptop but it was not repaired within the period of 54 days. After the repairs, the same Display problem developed in  the Laptop. Hence, Laptop was taken to the Opponent No.2 on the next day. The problem was not rectified. It was returned to the complainant in the third week of August 2010 but again the same problems were developed in addition to the problems of mal functioning of battery also cropped up.  The right speaker of the Laptop was not functioning properly.  On 22/9/2010 complainant asked refund or replacement of the Laptop.  But the Opponent No.2 did not take any action. Hence, complainant registered complaint with the CEO and the parent body of Opponent No.2 on 20/11/2010. Evenafter, period of two months when the Laptop was handed over it was not in usable state. Hence, complainant refused to accept the Laptop. After seven months delay since lodging the complaint, on 13/6/2010 the Laptop was returned by stating that the Opponent No.2 had loaded required operating system and had tested it for the performance.  The Laptop was functioning properly for about six months after the last repair.  Complainant submitted that once again the Laptop developed problems relating to the display unit. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Opponent No.2. Complainant has demanded refund of payment for the Laptop. Representative of the Opponent No.2 flatly refused refund stating that only repairs were possible under the terms of warranty. Then the Opponent No.2 insisted for returning the Laptop for inspection. It is the case of complainant that, Opponents have caused deficiency in service. Hence, he has filed present complaint and claimed refund of cost of Laptop with interest @ 12% p.a., compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental stress and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

[2]            Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing written version separately. It is the case of Opponent No.1 that the Laptop was in good condition for the period of one year from the date of purchase i.e. within the period of warranty and it was repaired from time to time. Hence, Opponent No.1 is not responsible for making payment of compensation on any ground to the complainant. It has further contended that the extended warranty was given by the Opponent No.2 and the relations between the Opponent No.1 and 2 are on principal to principal basis and not as principal and agent. In this circumstances, complaint is not maintainable against the Opponent No.1. It is liable to be dismissed.

[3]            According to the Opponent No.2 it has given proper service to the complainant. The Laptop was repaired from time to time within the extended warranty period and the Opponent No.2 was always ready for repairing the said Laptop. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent No.2. It has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Both the Opponents have also contended that there is no expert evidence produced by the complainant in order to establish that there is a defect in the Laptop. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

[4]            After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, pleadings, written argument and affidavits which are produced by both the parties and hearing the argument following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Reasons-

As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-

[5]            The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had purchased Laptop from Opponent No.2 who is the authorized agent of Opponent No.1. It is also not in much dispute that the Opponent No.1 has given one year warranty and Opponent No.2 has given two years extended warranty. It is the case of Opponent No.1 that during the period of first year of warranty whenever the Laptop had required repairs, it has taken care to repair the Laptop and the complainant was satisfied for that service and this fact is not seriously disputed by the complainant. In such circumstances, Opponent No.1 cannot be held liable either for defect in goods or for deficiency in service.

[6]            It is not disputed by the Opponent No.2 that it has given two years extended warranty to the complainant. But it is the case of Opponent No.2 that it was always ready and willing to provide proper service to the complainant during the extended warranty period and there is no deficiency in service.  It reveals from the voluminous documentary evidence which is produced by the complainant that he had made several efforts for the repairs of Laptop from Opponent No.2. Initially the Laptop was taken in the custody for 54 days for repairs. Subsequently, it was taken for seven months and even after carrying out repairs from time to time similar problem remained in the Laptop. Complainant has also contended that new problems were developed in the Laptop and those were beyond repairs. The Opponent has no machinery to test the Laptops after repairs. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Opponent No.2 has provided prompt and efficient services to the Complainant. In the result, it is the considered opinion of the Forum that Opponent No.2 is responsible to pay compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service. The learned Advocate for the Opponent No.2 argued that unless and until there is expert evidence it cannot be held that the product is defective. But it reveals from the documentary evidence that the display of Laptop was not standard display and the Laptop was given to the Opponent No.2 from time to time for carrying out repairs. In such circumstances, it is the opinion of the Forum that there is no need of expert evidence when the things are crystal clear. Complainant has asked refund of cost of Laptop along with interest @ 12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental stress and agony. On careful perusal of terms and conditions in the extended warranty it reveals that if the cost of repair has become more than the value of Laptop then cost of Laptop can be refunded. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum held that the Complainant is entitled to receive cost of Laptop Rs.62,375/- and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental stress and agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

                In the result this Forum answers points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is partly allowed against Opponent No.2 only.
2. It is hereby declared that the Opponent No.2 has   caused deficiency in service by selling defective product to the complainant.
3. Opponent No.  2 is  directed to pay cost of Laptop of Rs.62,375/- [Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Five only] and Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand only] towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. If the amounts are not paid within the stipulated period it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.
6. Complaint is dismissed against Opponent No.1.
7. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Member within one month from the date of order.

Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 05/06/2014