IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 201/2018 (filed on 26/09/2018)
Petitioners : Ajayagopal,
Puthupparambil house,
Vallichira P.O. Pala,
Kottayam – 686 574
(Adv. Raju Hariharan)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) Manager,
JP Inc, GF, Global e Business Ops
Pvt. Ltd. No.66/2, Ward No. 83,
Bagmane Tech – Park, 7th Floor,
A-Wing “Embassy Prime”
CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore,
Karnataka Pin – 560093.
2) Manager,
Rex Computers,
Puthumana Tower,
Near Governement Hospital,
Palai, Kottayam, Pin – 686 575.
(Adv. George V. Thomas)
3) Manager,
HP Authorised Service Centre,
VOLTA Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
1st Floor, Parambichirayil Arcade,
Perumbaikkadu Village,
Kottayam – 686 006.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant placed an order with the 2nd opposite party for a desktop computer on 01-01-2018. The complainant purchased the ordered desktop computer HP AIO 27-A2021N8CC7351LXB manufactured by 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party on 06-01-2018 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- for his son Krishnanand . The computer has a warranty of 12 months from the date of supply for installation as per terms in the order form. Within one week of its purchase, the computer’s display started showing problems and display bulged. The complainant informed the 2nd opposite party about the problem soon but the 2nd opposite party paid no attention to the grievances about the faulty system. The complainant visited and telephoned 2nd opposite party regarding fault on computer on numerous occasions and finally second opposite party sent 3rd opposite party’s inexperienced men who had no knowledge about the computer. They visited complainant’s house and in the pretext of rectifying the problem of the computer those men worsened the problems of the computer. It is averred in the compliant that the computer is now in an extremely useless condition. It is further averred in the complaint that the problem of the computer is the result of the manufacturing defect.
Consequently the complainant sent a lawyers notice to all the three opposite parties on 21-06-2018 demanding Rs.1,30,000/- ie. cost of the computer with interest or replace the faulty computer with a new one. The 1st opposite party refused to accept the lawyers notice. Though the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties accepted the lawyers notice they did not take any step to solve the grievances of the complainant. On account of the manufacturing defect coupled with the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. Hence this complaint is filed praying an order to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest and compensation.
Though notice was served to opposite parties, 1st and 3rd opposite parties did not care to appear before the Commission and filed version. Hence 1st and 3rd opposite parties are set exparte.
2nd opposite party filed version contenting as follows.
The 2nd opposite party is only a dealer selling the computer and accessories manufactured and produced by various companies including the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is not personally liable for the defects if any in the products of the manufacturers and they never offered any after sale service to the complainant other than what is offered by the 1st opposite party. The allegation that within one week of purchase, the computer started showing problem and informed the 2nd opposite party is not correct. When the complainant informed about the complaint, the 2nd opposite party themselves lodged complaint immediately before the 3rd opposite party instead of directing the complainant to approach 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service agent of the 1st opposite party as good gesture of customer care and service to customers. The 3rd opposite party inspected the computer on 02-03-2018 and afterwards the complainant lodged the complaint directly to the 3rd opposite party. It is submitted in the version that to the knowledge of the 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party attended one complaint as and when lodged by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party never sent any person to attend the complaint of the complainant. The mechanics of the 3rd opposite party attended the complaint. After 02-03-2018, the complainant did not approach the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party on receipt of notice contacted the other opposite parties and they informed that grievances of the complainant were settled. Hence the 2nd opposite party has not sent any reply to the legal notice received. The allegation that the problems alleged in the computer is a manufacturing defect and there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party is absolutely false. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
Evidence of this case consist of deposition of Pw1 and Pw2 and Exts.A1 to A10 from the side of the complainant.
One Mrs. Usha Vijayan, who is the Manager of the 2nd opposite party and filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.B1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would frame the following issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had placed an order for a desktop computer with the 2nd opposite party on 01-01-2018. Ext.A1 is the order form issued by the 2nd opposite party.
The complainant had purchased the desktop computer which is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 06-01-2018. Ext.A2 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.1,33,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for the sale consideration of the desktop computer which is manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A1 proves that the 2nd opposite party offered a 12 months warranty for the said computer either from the date of supply or from the date of installation. It is further stated in the warranty clause in Ext.A1 that the offered warranty is only against the manufacturing defects.
The specific case of the complainant is that within one week of purchase, the computer got damaged and the computer showed the problems with the display. According to Pw1, though he had informed the complaints with the 2nd opposite party, 2nd opposite party did not turned up to rectify the defects. However Pw1 did not depose before the Commission, the date on which he lodged 1st complaint with the 2nd opposite party. Pw2 who is the son of the petitioner deposed before the Commission that he did not remember the date on which the complaint regarding the defect of the computer is lodged with the opposite parties. He further deposed before the Commission that the 2nd opposite party has changed the display of the computer and requested him to affix his signature on Ext.A3. On perusal of Ext.A3, which is the service call report by the 3rd opposite parties on 28-04-2018,we can see that on that day, the service persons replaced the display with touch and it is recorded further that the issue solved and Pw2 has affixed the signature. According to the 2nd opposite party, this complaint was reported by the complainant directly to the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party resolved the issue without the knowledge of the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party contented that they have received a complaint regarding problems of the computer on 02-03-2018 and soon after accept of the same they forwarded the complaint to the 3rd opposite party. Ext.B1 is the service call report of the 3rd opposite party dtd.02-03-2018. On perusal of Ext.B1 we can see that the complaint was lodged by the 2nd opposite party with the 3rd opposite party and the complaint was with the display bulging in the bottom of panel.
It is averred in the complaint that the computer repeatedly shows the same problem again. According to the complainant, the complaint of the computer is due to the manufacturing defect but he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his case on this aspect. He did not take any step to examine the computer with an expert and to ascertain whether the product is suffered by any manufacturing defect. However Ext.A3 and B1 proves that the computer is having same problems with its display within months of purchase. Ext.A1 proves that there is a warranty of 12 months for the manufacturing defect of the product. Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are bound to rectify the defect if any occur within the warranty period which they offered at the time of the sale of the product to the complainant.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we can see that the product started to show the problems with the display within the warranty period. As discussed above, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is a manufacturing defect on the product. Hence we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that he is entitled for refund of the consideration paid by him. However the non-performance of warranty on time which is offered by the opposite parties at the time of the sale of the product to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. On perusal of Ext.A1, we can see that the 1st opposite party offered the warranty for a period of 12 months. It is submitted by the opposite parties in the version that the warranty is offered by the manufacturer who is the 1st opposite party at the time of the sale of the product. Here in case in hand we already found that the computer is having some defect within the warranty period and opposite parties are not rectifying the problem as offered by them. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the consumers from the deceptive practice of trades, manufactures and sellers. Thus we are inclined to allow the complaint in part and pass the following Order.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the computer at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of Order.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 30th day of September, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 : Ajayagopal
Pw2 : Krishnanand P.A.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Order form dtd.01-01-2018 issued by the 2nd opposite party
A2 : Tax invoice dtd.06-01-18 issued by the 2nd opposite party
A3 : Service call report dtd.28-04-18
A4 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.21-06-18 issued to all 3 opposite parties
A5 : Postal receipt dtd.21-06-18 issued to 2nd opposite party
A6 : Postal acknowledgement card to 2nd opposite party
A7 : Postal receipt dtd.21-06-18 issued to 3rd opposite party
A8 : Postal acknowledgement card to 3rd opposite party
A9 : : Postal receipt dtd.21-06-18 issued to 1st opposite party
A10 : Lawyers notice returned by the 1st opposite party showing the message
‘main section refused’
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Service call report dtd.02-03-18
By Order
Senior Superintendent
