SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to  replace the laptop and to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and  compensation for Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the  deficiency of service on their part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

  The complainant had purchased a laptop from 1^st OP on 19/9/2016  for her MBA education.  The Ops showed the advertisement and 3^rd OP assured that the HP Laptop contain good quality. Only believing the words of 3^rd OP the complainant purchased the laptop for Rs.21,350/- from 1^st OP.  At the time of  purchasing the laptop OP.NO.3 assured one year warranty and authorized service centre  service also.  But unfortunately after 5 months the laptop become defective and no display seen in the screen.  Immediately the complainant approached to 1^st OP for  curing the defects of the laptop.  But 1^st OP give the mobile phone number of 2^nd OP and informed the matter to 2^nd OP’s service centre.  Thereafter one staff of 2^nd OP came to complainant’s house ,checked the laptop and photos taken and informed the matter to 1^st OP also.  The Ops promised that the mother board problem and they cure the defects as early as possible. But the Ops are not ready to cure the defects.  Thereafter on 21/2/2017 the complainant produce the laptop before 1^st OP for curing the defect.  But  after 1 ½  months the OP.No.1 is not cure the defects of the laptop and returned the same not  replace a new one also.  The Ops are not rectifying either to repair  the laptop  until warranty or replace another set. But the Ops failed to do so.  The act of Ops the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.    So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint, notice  issued to all  opposite parties.  Ops 1&2 entered appearance before the commission and filed their  written version.  OP.NO.3  absent and  no version filed .  Then the 3^rd OP called absent and set exparte.

   OP.NO.1 contended that he never insisted the complainant to purchase a particular brand which was manufactured by 3^rd OP.  This OP is having an outlet of all international brands of laptop including the products manufactured by 3^rd OP also.  2^nd OP checked the laptop and found that due to careless handling by the complainant, a lot of “ant”  was entered inside the laptop and they  defected  so many part of motherboard of the laptop.  Moreover also found   corrosion inside the laptop and on the motherboard.  The entire defects caused  to the laptop was only due to the careless handling of the complainant.  The 1^st OP has not caused any financial loss or mental agony to the complainant.  So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.NO.1.  2^nd OP also contended that the claim on replacement of the laptop along with compensation shall not be sustained against a service provider.  2^nd OP cannot be liable for the laptop quality, functionality and its standards or its workmanship etc. So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd OP and the  complaint  may be dismissed.

    On the  basis of the rival contentions by the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ?

3. Relief and cost?

      The   evidence consists  of the  oral testimony of PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A4 documents and MO1.  No oral or documentary evidence  from the side of Ops.

Issue No.1:

   The complainant  adduced evidence before the commission  by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu  of  her chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. She was cross examined  as PW1 by Ops1&2.  She  relied on Exts.A1 to A4 documents and MO1  to substantiate her case.  According to complainant she had purchased  the laptop on 19/9/2016 as per Ext.A1.  It clearly shows that she had paid Rs.21350/- to the laptop.  In Ext.A2  the service call report dtd.3/2/2017 the laptop became defective and the problem found with mother board, no display also noted.  At the time of purchasing the laptop, 3^rd OP assured one year warranty with authorized service also.  But the Ops are not ready to repair the laptop within  the warranty period.  In Ext.A3 also noted that the problem found with mother board no display  noted.  In Ext.A3  also noted  that the problem  found  with mother board no display dated on 21/2/2017.  Moreover as per the remarks noted warranty rejected by company due to mother board damage(ant) will  try to get the company  warranty.  In her evidence she deposed that “Ext.A3  bn  warranty  In«m\pÅ {iaw \S¯mw F¶v ]dªn«p­v.  kz´w sNehn repair  sN¿m\pÅ {iaw Rm³ \S¯nbn«nÃ.  AXp sIm­mWv laptop OP.NO.1   Â \n¶v Xncns¨Sp¯Xv.   But the Ops are not ready to cure the defects in the warranty period.  So opposite parties are bound either to repair  the  laptop at free of cost or  to replace or  refund.  Since the  Ops are denied to repair /replace or  refund  the laptop.  The complainant also produced the laptop (MO1) before the commission.  Moreover in Ext.A4 shows that the complainant was forced to purchase another brand laptop for her studies due to the  deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parties.  The laptop was purchased on 19/9/2016 became defective on 3/2/2017, ie, within 5 months after the  date of purchase.  So we are of the  considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 were liable  either to repair or replace the laptop under warranty.  Since they failed to do so.  On opposite parties side no evidence and no documents  produced before the commission for prove their defense also.  We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

Issue Nos.2 & 3:

      As discussed above , the laptop was purchased by the complainant became defective within 5 months after the purchase.  So we hold  that the opposite parties are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.  It is an evident  before the commission that the complainant was forced to purchase another brand new laptop for Rs.20,000/- dtd.21/4/2017  only due to the  deficiency of  service  on the part of Ops, so the complainant is entitled to get the purchase price of the laptop from the Ops.  Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties  are jointly and severally liable to  refund  Rs.21350/- to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation  and Rs.4000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. Thus the  issues No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.

       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to refund  Rs.21350/- ie, the price of  laptop  to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation  and Rs.4000/-  as litigation cost , within  30 days  of  receipt  of  this order, failing which the   complainant is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. After the said proceedings, the opposite parties  are at liberty to take back the MO1 before the commission.

Exts:

A1- Invoice

A2&A3- job card dtd.3/2/2017& 21/2/2017

A4-Tax invoice

MO1- laptop.

PW1- Shonima- complainant

  Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                                 MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                      Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR