SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the value of laptop Rs. 28202/- with compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief:
The complainant had purchased a laptop bill No: 3342 worth Rs. 28202/- HP 15 AC 122 TU (13/4 GB/ITB/15.6/DOS) from 1st opposite party on 23/07/2016. At the time of purchasing the laptop the complainant intended to help his brother’s Engineering education also. But the laptop became damage within 2 days, though the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for cure the defects. Then the 1st OP states that this is not the defect of the laptop only reduce the battery charge. There after few days the keyboard, touch pad and display were not work in proper way. Again the complainant approached 1st opposite party for repair the laptop or replace new one. Then the opposite party: 1 states that the complaint was registered and informed the company. Then the complainant registered the complaint as case No: 4776667855 and informed to service centre also. On 25/08/2016 the company’s technician inspected the laptop and find out keyboard complaint on 17/09/2016 the technician (HP Authorized Service Centre, Calicut) noted the issue description ie, keyboard and battery details. But after so many times the complainant approached the opposite parties for replace the laptop. But the opposite parties neither repair the laptop nor to replace another lap top within the warranty period. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
After filing the complaint notice was issued to opposite parties. 1st opposite party entered appearance before the commission and filed his written version. The opposite party 1 contended that who is only the dealer of the product and no right to replace the product. The real manufacturer the manufacturing company may be arrayed and impleaded as the necessary party. This opposite party No: 1 has no liability to cure the grievance caused to the complainant. Moreover opposite party 1 contended that the defects caused to the laptop only for the wrong use of complainant itself. This opposite party 1 is an unnecessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed a petition to implead the manufacturing company in this case. The petition allowed by the commission and summons issued to opposite party No: 2. Opposite party No: 2 appeared before the commission and written version filed. Opposite party No:2 contended that standard checks are carried out at the service centre and observation is recorded by the service engineer on the job card. The opposite party attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant and cured the grievance. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No: 2. Moreover the replacement of laptop is unsustainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
- Relief and cost.
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of pw1 and marked Exts. A1 to A3. On opposite party’s side Ext.B1 marked.
Issue No: 1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. The complainant was cross examined as PW1 by opposite parties. The documents Exts. A1 to A3 marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant the laptop was purchased on 23/07/2016 with an intention to help his brother’s engineering education also. But after 2 days some defects caused to the laptop and not working smoothly. As per Ext. A1 bill the laptop was purchased on 23/07/2016 for an amount of Rs. 28202/- from opposite party No: 1. As per Ext.A2 warranty check detail the start date dated as March 30th 2016 and end date dated as may 28th 2017. But on 17/09/2016 the laptop became damaged and Ext.A3 noted the defects of keyboard and battery. So the opposite parties bound either to repair the laptop or replace/ refund. Since the opposite parties denied to repair/replace the laptop. In cross examination PW1 admits that basic manufacturing defects CÃm-¯-Xp-sIm-mWv laptop amän Xcm-¯Xv F¶v ]d-ªm (D) icn-bm-Wv. Battery amän-bn-cp-s¶-¦n laptop D]-tbm-Kn-¡m-am-bn-cp¶p F¶v ]d-ªm (D) icnbmWv. It is clearly shows that the defects of the laptop not properly repaired. There is deficiency of service on their part.
The opposite parties vehemently stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part. Since there is battery damage to the laptop they are not supported replace the laptop customer warranty conditions. They relied on exhibits B1 Tax Invoice to substantiate their defence.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents, evidence and arguments we the commission hold that the laptop which was purchased on 23/07/2016 became defective on 17/09/2016 ie, within 2 months after the date of purchase. Opposite party No: 1 dealer admitted the same but he denied the replacement of laptop. So we are of the considered view that the opposite party No: 1 is liable either to replace or refund the value of laptop. Since they failed to do, we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No: 1. Hence the issue No: 1 Found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No: 2 & 3
As discussed above the laptop was purchased by the complainant became defective within 2 months after the purchase. There is no expert proof about the battery damage, ie manufacturing defect. So we hold that the opposite party No: 1 is directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get the purchase price of the laptop from the opposite party No: 1. There is privity of contract between 1st opposite party dealer and the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite party No: 1 is liable to refund Rs. 28202/- to the complainant along with Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost. Thus issue No: 2 & 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No: 1 is liable to refund Rs. 28202/- to the complainant along with Rs. 4000/- as compensation and Rs 3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of the 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 1st opposite party is at liberty to lake back the laptop from the complainant.
Exts:
A1 – Bill
A2 – Warranty Check details
A3 – Job service report.
B1 – Tax Invoice
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
/Forwarded by Order/
Senior Superintendent