THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.199/2017

Dated this the 14^h day of May, 2018

 (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                        Smt. Beena Joseph, M.A                    :  Member

                                                                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.      :  Member

ORDER

Present: Rose Jose, President:

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for getting an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective laptop with a defect free new one of the same model and specifications and also for compensation and cost.

The case of the petitioner is that, his son Niranjan is an Engineering student and for his study purpose – he needed a laptop.  So he approached the 1^st opposite party during the onam season 2016 and the 1^st opposite party told him that there is an onam offer for the sale of Hp brand laptop and if he purchase an Hp brand laptop  worth Rs.58,990/-, they will provide 30000 wireless, Hp Mouse, speaker, mini Bluetooth, pen drive, Hp 16GB, Hp backpack, premium peacock, 1 year warranty + extended 2 years warranty free of cost as onam offer. Fascinated by these offers he had purchased the said laptop from the 1^st opposite party on 10/09/206 paying Rs.58,990/-.

But to his utter disappointment, after few days of its purchase, the set showed complaints like graphic card battery backup and flickering in display. Flickering was there even the laptop working in direct current. When these complaints were reported to the 1^st opposite party, they repaired the set. But even after repair the same complaint persisted and then the 1^st opposite party told that the problem is due to the partition of hard disc and it is also stated that when graphic was highly loaded the system will hangs and he insisted the petitioner to entrust the laptop with them for inspection. After many days 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the mother board has to be changed and as such it is changed also. After this repair also, complaints persisted and this time 1^st opposite party showed his helplessness and requested the 2^nd opposite party to replace the set with a new one and it was agreed by the 2^nd opposite party also. As demanded from the service centre of the 1^st opposite party, the petitioner returned the system to 1^st opposite party for replacement. But when he demanded replacement 1^st opposite party informed that he has to pay additional amount of Rs.2,800/-towards sale tax. When he raised objection against this demand, the 1^st opposite party raised a redemand that the same model laptop is not available and that he has to pay the amount of complimentaries provided free of cost as onam offer. The petitioner stated that the said demand of the opposite party is against trade ethics and he has not liable to pay any amount for the complimentaries, since the laptop delivered to him was a faulty one. Moreover the opposite parties had charged only one rupee each for the complimentaries. Due to the defects of the laptop, his son could not use the same for his study purpose and this caused much mental agony and other hardships to him. The sale of a defective product on pretext that it is of good quality and durability is unfair trade practice and the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties in replacing the same with a new one is deficiency in service on their part.

On receiving notice from this Forum 1^st opposite party appeared but not filed version. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties also not appeared or filed version. Hence all the opposite parties set ex-parte.

The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced Ext.s A1 to A7 in support of his averments to prove his case. Ext. A1 is the copy of invoice dated 10/09/2016 issued by the 1^st opposite party for Rs.58,990/-. Ext. A2 is the copy of service authorization form issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 11/02/2017. Ext.s A3 and A4 are the copies of service reports issued  by 1^st opposite party dated 27/02/2017 and 01/03/2017 respectively. Ext. A5 is the copy of e-mail dated 03/04/2017 send by son of the petitioner to 3^rd opposite party. Ext. A6 is the reply to Ext. A5 dated 06/04/2017. Ext. A7 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 13/04/2017 issued by the petitioner to the 1^st opposite party.

The opposite parties didn’t file version challenging the statements of the petitioner or produced any evidence to rebut the validity of the documents marked on the side of the petitioner. Hence the case of the petitioner stands unchallenged and proved.

Considering the facts stated and evidence on record we are also of the view that the said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and other hardships. Of course, the defects with the laptop had caused hardships and mental agony to the petitioner and his son since it has not served its purpose and so they are entitled for reasonable compensation also. But these alone is not sufficient for allowing such a huge amount as compensation. It needs evidence for the exact loss sustained by them due to the defect of the laptop. In the absence of evidence in this regard, the said prayer of the petitioner is not admissible as such.

Hence the following order is passed.

Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to replace the defective laptop of the petitioner with a defect free new one of the same model and specifications without charging any additional amount and if not, refund its purchase price of Rs.58,990/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties are also ordered to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the poroceedings.  The opposite parties can take back the defective laptop on compliance of this order.  

Dated this the 14^th day of May, 2018

Date of filing: 07/05/2017

SD/-MEMBER                           SD/-PRESIDENT               SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of invoice dated 10/09/2016 issued by the 1^st opposite party

A2. Copy of service authorization form issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 11/02/2017

A3. Copy of service report issued by 1^st opposite party dated 27/02/2017

A4. Copy of service report issued by 1^st opposite party dated 01/03/2017

A5. Copy of e-mail dated 03/04/2017 to 3^rd opposite party

A6. Reply to Ext. A5

A7. Copy of lawyer notice dated 13/04/2017 to the 1^st opposite party

A7(a) Copy of acknowledgement card and postal receipt

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None   

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT