IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   30^th  DAY OF APRIL 2022

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

       Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

         Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.206/2021

Jojin J.Simon, aged 26,

S/o Jacob Simon, Arattu Bedhani,

Mullikkala, Thevelakkara P.O.,

Kollam                                                                      :         Complainant

V/s                                                                                

1. Manager,

MSI India Customer Care,

MSI Pacific Internationa

l Holding Co Limited,

F-26, First Floor, Okhla Phase-,

Newdelhi-110020

2. Manager,

MSI India Marketing Office,

B-1180, Kanakia, Wallstreet,

Ckakala, Anderi East, Mumbai,

Maharashtra-400093.                                              :          Opposite parties

3. Manager,

Flipkart Internet Pvt.Ltd.,

Ozone many Tech Park, #56/18 & 55/09,

7^th Floor, Garvebhavipaiya,

Hosur Road, Banglore 560068.

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 1919.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          Complainant had purchased a laptop with brand name of MSI GF 639 acer through Flipkart vide order 0D122147306061105000 from the authorized dealer on 25^th June 2021 and the product was delivered on 27^th June 2021.   The payment was through SBI credit card in EMI.  Thereafter the complainant noted that the said product is defective.  Even from the very first day of receiving the laptop

within few days of the purchase it was noticed by the complainant that the device was very slow and is lagging.  This was duly informed to the customer care centre several times with regard to the defects of the laptop.  Regarding the defect the complainant followed and solutions suggested by the support team and still    there was no improvement in the performance of the laptop.  Even after it is a          well-established fact that for gaming a laptop with the configuration of i5 9^th gen processer, 8 GB ram and 4 GB graphics should be sufficient enough.  But in this laptop these are entirely different and not at all normal.  But customer care support team suggested to operate the system, reset the system also to disable the unwanted settings by removing the unnecessary applications and updated to the latest version.  But all these efforts are in vein.  The complainant previously used a desktop which was much faster than the brand new laptop.

          The main defect of the laptop is its lagging.  This is mainly due to the defective hardware.  The hardware is showing 90% to 100% loss of the time even when there is no other software has installed.  Yet another defect was related to the screen previously the complainant cannot notice the dead pinel in the screen  due to the pre-installed wallpaper which is black and red in colour.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party and informed the said defect but the 1^st opposite party evaded on silly excuses and ignored the grievance of the

complainant.  According to the 1^st opposite party the laptop is lagging due to the lack of SSD drive and suggested to invest 256GSSD to install in the laptop and move the window into the SSD.  Then the complainant will see big improvement. The grievance of the complainant is that it is the duty of the seller by protecting

their customer by rectifying the reported defects in a product they sold.  But unfortunately in this case they are insisting to invest more installing new SSD at the cost of complainant in a defective product sold by them.  The opposite parties are taking a contention that due to the anti-virus programme and that the device is

slow.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties when the disk was at 100%  where the system is lagging.  But they responded that the main reason is the installation of anti-virus.  One of the software very important for keeping the computer safe.   The complainant pleads that a reputed company like MSI(OP1) which was very irresponsible to the customer when he informed about the major defect lagging.  The act of the 2^nd opposite party is totally unfair and the product given to the complaint is a substandard one having an inherent manufacturing defect.  These all defects have been happened in the warranty period and complainant requested them to provide adequate measures to replace the product.  It is very vital to note that from the very first month of the purchase the complainant has to face these problems in the laptop.  At that time the laptop is overheating and the battery is having poor backup.  The complainant’s request regarding replacement or to rectify the defects has been denied even after the approaching the 1^st opposite party (customer care).  This is a clear case of manufacturing defect resulted from the poor workmanship of the manufacturer for which the complainant have suffered loss and damage.  The opposite parties have  obligation to keep the laptop in perfect working condition at least for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase by the complainant which they failed to do so.  In the circumstances the complainant was constrained to approach the National Consumer Helpline.  When they contacted the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties they gave the similar response as earlier and closed the matter.  The complainant has purchased the laptop solely for the purpose of his education and work.  But

the laptop provided by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through 3^rd opposite party is defective and faulty one.  The complainant had totally strucked by a defective product where the company is denying the provision of replacement which caused the complainant severe mental agony and hardship.  Since the complainant has purchased the product with great ambition and expectations unfortunately the product didn’t meet the expected standard of a laptop worth Rs.50,000/-.

According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party deliberately abstaining themselves from providing aid to the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service.  Thus the opposite parties are jointly liable to compensate the complainant for putting him into huge financial crisis mental depression, mental agony and loss of precious time.  Hence the complaint.   

          The opposite parties 1 to 3 remained  exparte.  The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P5 documents.  Heard the complainant who appeared in person perused the records.  Ext.P1 is the original invoice dated 25.06.2021.  Ext.P2 is the email issued from Manager, MSI India Customer Care dated 10.08.2021.  Ext.P3 is the photocopy indicating the device performance and disc usage.  Ext.P4 is the copy of email from corseca dated 16.08.2021.  Ext.P5 is the grievance No.2920778 dated 24.08.2021.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P4 documents would establish prima facie that complainant Sri. Jojin J.Simon had purchased laptop from 3^rd opposite party Flipkart through corseca which was manufacture by the 2^nd opposite party MSI India Marketing Office.  As per the Ext.P1 the device was found defective from the very beginning of the purchase But it being slow and lagging without any heavy usage as such in a normal use.  This defect was informed to the 1^st opposite party customer care but their response was very disappointing and not consumer friendly.   The complainant has to face bitter experience with the 1^st opposite party customer care.  Anyhow they were stating lame excuses as the device is lagging due to the installation of anti-virus software.  It is to be pertinent to note that it is very inevitable to keep the device safe from virus attack.   According to the customer care the next tactics played by the 1^st opposite party is the due to absence or lack of solid state drive.  SSD the main purpose of the SSD is or acquiring higher performance and speed in hand

disc drive and for enabling for other uses.  Here the HDD is defective and device is lagging.  When the complainant made his grievance before the 1^st opposite party they suggested the complainant to invest more money into a defective product by installing a new SSD and they also insisted the complainant to replace display panel only after informing at the stage of deadly Covid 19 period.  The service centre is 100 km from the residence of the complainant.  It is well evident from Ext.P3 document that the device usage was always 100% even after no other programme is running or using.  This is solely due to the defective hard disc.  It is pertinent to note that in the device only Google chrome was installed.  Ext.P3 clearly indicates the disc usage @ 100% when no other software is working.  The complainant has at last contacted the National Consumer grievance online but without finding any solution to complainant’s grievance the opposite parties have closed the matter.  So it is clear from the documents that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective laptop or to return its invoice price and pay a reasonable compensation.

          In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

          1) Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to replace the defective laptop by a brand new laptop of the same quality and specification or to pay its invoice price with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of purchase till payment Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

2) Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay costs Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

3) Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to comply with the directions within 45 days after collecting/taking back the defective laptop from the complainant failing which the complainant is entitled to realize the invoice price of the laptop and compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization along with costs from opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally and from their assets.

  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  30^th  day of  April 2022.        

                                                                   STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Original invoice dated 25.06.2021

Ext.P2             : Email issued from Manager, MSI India Customer Care dated 10.08.2021

Ext.P3             : Photocopy indicating the device performance and disc usage.

Ext.P4             : Copy of email from corseca dated 16.08.2021.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil