IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                         Wednesday the 07^th day of October, 2020.

                                      Filed on 09-08-2018

  Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.218/2018

   between

  Complainant:-                                               Opposite party:-

Sri.Boban T.D                                             1.   HP India Sales Pvt.Ltd    

S/o Dasan                                                         24 Salarpuria, Arena Hosur Main Road

Thakidveli                                                        Adugodi, Bangalore-560030

Kalavoor P.O.                                                   Rep. by its Marketing Manager

Alappuzha.                                                       (By Adv.V.Vijayakumar)

(By Adv.T.S.Suresh)                                     

                                                                    2.   M/s Volta Technology Solutions

                                                                          Pvt.Ltd. Door No.39/3723

                                                                          First Floor SR Complex, Ravipuram

                                                                          Road, Valanjambalam, Kochi,682016

                                                                          Rep.by its Administrative officer -

                                                                          Smt.Sruthi

                                                                          (Ex-parte)

                                                                    3.   M/s Logic systems, XVII/1077

                                                                          West of Vazhicherry Junction,

                                                                          Cullen Road, Alappuzha

                                                                          Rep. by its Manager -

                                                                          Sri.Joseph Antony

                                                                          (Ex-parte)

ORDER

                                      C.K. LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)

       The case of the complainant is as follows:-

       The complainant purchased an HP Laptop bearing No.    HP15BS659TX SL No.CND 7466X811 from the 3^rd opposite party, the seller of the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs/36,820/-(Rupees thirty-six thousand eight hundred and twenty only) on 15.03.2018.  He purchased the device for the study purpose of his daughter.  After 2 months of purchase the said laptop went out of order.  The daughter of the complainant has to attend online classes therefore the laptop is highly necessary for her study.  The laptop sent for repairs to the 3^rd opposite party and they cured the defect and it was working thereafter.  But after one week the laptop again shown complaint and the same was also intimated to the 3^rd opposite party and instructed to charge the laptop, while it was charging a bad smell and smoke came out from the laptop and hence it became defunct.  The same day itself the complainant taken the laptop to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party informed the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party, service provider.  The 3^rd opposite party also informed the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party will enquire the complaint of the laptop and told to give the details of the complaint to the second opposite party.  As per that complainant sent an E-mail regarding the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party on 11.5.15.   The opposite parties realized that the defect is not repairable and it is a manufacturing defect of the device and offered to replace laptop within one week but even after the repeated demand by the complainant the opposite parties are not turning up to replace the laptop.  The acts of the opposite parties are attract deficiency of service and it is the unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

2.    Version of 1^st opposite party are as follows:-

       According to the 1^st opposite party the complainant is approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts.  The laptop had standard warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase ie, from 15^th March 2018 to 14^th March 2019, as on date the laptop is out of the warranty period.  The laptop in question is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same are depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the software installed on the system.  Any mishandling of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system.  On verification of the data base maintained for the calls/ complaints lodged in respect of the laptop in question, there is no record found for the complainant reporting any issues in the laptop or filed any complaint with the 1^st opposite party or its authorized service centre within two months of purchased as alleged.  As per records, the complainant had lodged first case on 19^th December 2018 the issue was promptly attended and resolved the reported issue by replacing RAM as per terms of warranty.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is prima facie unsustainable and therefore the question of granting any relief to the complainant does not arise.  The opposite party No.1 further submits that the laptop has not known issues or manufacturing defects as alleged.  The 1^st opposite party is ready and willing to resolve issues in the laptop in question as per the terms of the warranty and the complainant is at liberty to approach the opposite party no.1 or any of its customer care centre/ authorized service centre and get the laptop diagnosed for issues and get the same resolved on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty as any repair/ service replacement of parts after the warranty period free of costs is not possible or permissible as per the terms of the warranty.  The claim for any compensation is false, legally untenable/ not maintainable.  The complainant is trying for an unjust enrichment and trying his luck by filing the present complaint claiming for the exorbitant amounts towards compensation without proper justification.

3.    Opposite parties 2 and 3 were exparte.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party were appeared through counsel.  Complainant was examined as PW1 Exts. A1 to A4 were marked.  No oral or documentary evidence adduced by 1^st opposite party.  Complainant filed argument notes and we have heard the respective counsel.

4.    The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed device?
2. Compensation and cost if any?  

5.    Points No.1 & 2

       Ext.A1 is the evidence of transaction between the parties.  Opposite party No.1 has not raised any objection against the above document.  1^st opposite party admitted that they have given one year warranty for the device.  As per the evidence laptop went out of order within the warranty period.  Their only objection is that the defect mentioned in Ext. A2 are the complaints informed by the complainant and the same was noted by opposite parties technician otherwise it is not at all considered as an expert report.  The defect occurred due to mishandling of system by the complainant and failed to prove manufacturing defect with support of expert opinion.

       According to the complainant once opposite party rectified the defect thereafter shown complaints.  The matter informed to the 3^rd opposite party, they advised the complainant to charge the device.  Unfortunately  after an hour while it was charging a bad smell and smoke came out from lap top and was again defunct.  The complainant contented that it is a continuing complaint and the same was entrusted with 3^rd opposite party.  Thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party 2 through Ext.A3 E-mail.  According to the complaint opposite parties 2 & 3 were examined the device and found that the defect is manufacturing defect and they offered to replace the same.  The device is still with opposite party 3.  Hence there is no need for an expert opinion.  Moreover, if the system is not having manufacturing defect opposite party can produce the same before the commission.

       It appears that the laptop went out of order in different occasions it happens within warranty period also.  The 1^st opposite party agreed that once the defect was rectified by replacing RAM.  Their only dispute is with regard to the lack of expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect. 

       On a perusal of Ext.A2 report it is found that engineer of 2^nd opposite party was examined the system and found the defects and those are mentioned under the head ‘resolution summary’.  It means the system is defective.  According to the complainant, the complaint repeated and the device is entrusted with opposite party 3 and opposite party 3 did not come before the commission and deny that.  As per the argument notes by the complainant the system did not return and it is still under the custody of opposite party 3.  The 1^st opposite party did not have a case that opposite party No.3 was returned the system to the complainant. Moreover, as per Ext.A3 complainant properly informed about the complaint and request for replacement to opposite party 2.  Hence we are under the impression that if the laptop is in working condition or not having any manufacturing defects or other defects they ought to have produce the same before the commission and convince us their version.  There is no evidence before us that the defect occurred due to mishandling of the system by the complainant.  In view of the aforementioned reasons we found that the lap top in question is suffering inherent defect that has been detected by the engineer of 2^nd opposite party therefore, further technical report is not necessary.  Hence supporting decisions quoted by opposite parties version is not applicable in this case.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of laptop in question from the 1^st and 3^rd  opposite parties, the manufacturer and seller respectively, since the defect occurred within a short span of time and opposite parties failed to rectify the defect thereby the complainant is deprived of using the device for his purpose.  Moreover, opposite parties put the complainant in to an unnecessary litigation.  Having considered the entire evidence on records and the circumstances involved in this case we are of the firm opinion that the agony of the complainant would be abated by the following order.

In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct that:-

1. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.36,820/- (Rupees thirty six thousand eight hundred and twenty only) to the complainant, being the price of the laptop under dispute within the time frame set out below.

Failing which complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

2. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant.

The said order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 07^th day of October,2020.

                                          Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) 

                                          Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Boban T.D (Witness)

Ext.A1                -        Copy of bill dtd 15.03.2018

Ext.A2                -        Service call report

Ext.A3                -        Copy of E-mail

Ext.A4                -        Advertisement

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  Nil

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-