BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 172/2010 Filed on 11.06.2010

Dated : 30.04.2012

Complainant :

Kiran Jacob, presently having address at 12/16, Aashirwad, Udani Layout, Cambridge Road, Bangalore from Muthiraparampil, Vazhappally, Changanacherry- 686 103.

(By adv. K. Vasantha Kumar)

Opposite parties :

1. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 030.

   (By adv. R. Rajeev for 1^st & 2^nd OP)

2. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Rubiyan, I Floor, 41/1476, Arangath Road, Near Veekshanam Press, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 018.

    

   (Deleted from party array as per I.A 283/10)

3. Nortech Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Krishar, T.C 17/2054, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 012.

    

4. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd., #777K, 13^th Main, 100 ft. Road, HAL 2^nd Stage, Indira Nagar, Bangalore- 560 038.

    

5. Focuz Computers, Banerji Road, Ernakulam.

This O.P having been heard on 21.04.2012, the Forum on 30.04.2012 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

Complainant is a hardware engineer, presently working in Bangalore. The complainant purchased a Compaq Laptop through his brother Arun Jacob on 08.11.2006 from the 5^th opposite party. The laptop had an original warranty for one year. But, later the complainant realized that the laptop model purchased by him was identified by the manufacturer himself as having some manufacturing defects and hence the manufacturer was providing an extended warranty to the motherboards of this laptop model. While so, the laptop became non-functional towards the end of the extended warranty period. The laptop was handed over to the 3^rd opposite party herein, who was the manufacturer's authorized service centre at Thiruvananthapuram. The 3^rd opposite party identified the defect as that of the motherboard, which demanded replacement of the motherboard. So, the laptop was bailed for motherboard replacement for the first time during the extended warranty period, which was delivered to the complainant after the motherboard replacement, after the expiry of the extended warranty period on 27.11.2008. Thereafter, the laptop again became non-functional within 60 days of the replacement of the motherboard. When the laptop was delivered to the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party again identified the defect with the replaced motherboard, but refused another replacement of the motherboard stating the reason that the period of warranty had expired. The laptop was returned to the complainant without any repairs on 07.02.2009. Consequently, the complainant filed CC 52/2009, before this Hon'ble Forum. While the said CC 52/2009 was pending, the manufacturer settled the said case by providing motherboard replacement and extending the warranty to the replaced motherboard for another year. But to the greatest disappointment of the complainant, the laptop again broke down in April 2010. Again, the defect is identified as that of the motherboard and it warrants replacement. The laptop was returned to the complainant without repairs on 30.04.2010. The complainant is convinced that the repeated break downs of the laptop for the same reason, since its purchase, conclusively proves that the laptop was a defective product of the manufacturer. Another replacement of the motherboard cannot change the defective situation. Hence this complaint.

Opposite parties remain exparte.

Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P7.

The issue to be considered is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.

The point:- Complainant has sworn that he had earlier filed one complaint as CC 52/2009 before this Forum regarding the defects in the laptop in dispute and the same was settled between parties. As per the settlement, it is seen that the motherboard has been replaced with a warranty for a period of one year from 04.09.2009 to 04.09.2010. According to the complainant, the laptop became defective in April 2010 i.e; within 7 months after the second replacement of the defective motherboard. As per Ext. P6 it is evident that the complainant had entrusted his laptop for repair with the 4^th opposite party. The 4^th opposite party again identified the defect as that of the replaced motherboard. But, the laptop was returned to the complainant without repairs on 30.04.2010. By this time, it is learnt by the complainant through internet that the “microprocessor” a component used in the motherboard of this type of laptops by the same manufacturer is not one which will work properly in Indian climatic condition and this defect in the manufacture of the unit was identified by the manufacturer itself. The complainant has pleaded that it is worthless to remain satisfied with another spare part replacement when particularly the defect is certain to repeat due to a fault on the part of the manufacturer. Opposite parties have not filed their version or denied any allegations levelled against them. Opposite parties have not cross examined PW1 either. Hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

From the evidence adduced on the part of the complainant, it could be seen that the motherboard had to be replaced twice and yet the problem persisted. If repeated servicing and repairing of the laptop fail in resolving the problem encountered by the complainant, it points to the existence of some serious defects in it. The complainant has been seriously harassed and handicapped because of a defective laptop. Though the previous complaint was settled by replacing the motherboard, there is no point in saying that at the time of delivery the complainant was satisfied of the perfect condition of the laptop. It is only after putting the laptop into regular use that the defects come out one by one. In this case the complainant could not use the laptop defect free. The desire of a buyer has been disappointed by the performance of the laptop. If really the equipment did not have any problem, there was no need for the complainant to approach the opposite party within 7 months from the date of repair. In the above circumstance, we find that, as the documents and evidence itself reveal that the laptop is defective, the procedure contemplated under Sec. 13(1)(c) need not be followed. Hence we find that this is an unfair trade practice and the laptop shall be replaced with a new one. The complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings and we allow Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

In the result, opposite parties are directed to replace the laptop with a defect free new one and take back the laptop in dispute or in the alternative shall refund Rs. 41,000/- to the complainant. In case of refund the opposite parties are entitled to take back the laptop from the possession of the complainant. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of April 2012.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 172/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Form No. 8 B of Rs. 41,500/-

P2 - Copy of service call report dated 27.11.2008

P3 - Copy of service call report dated 07.02.2009

P4 - E-mail dated 22.08.2009

P5 - Copy of service call report dated 10.09.2009

P6 - Copy of service call report dated 27.04.2010

P7 - Copy of the complaint.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb