OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.104/09
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3) Md.Jamatul Islam - Member
Mrs.Farida Yasmin - Complainant
H-6, Housing colony,Group-A
Bishnu Rabha Path, Bhetapara,Guwahati-28.
-vs-
1) M/S Quadro Digital System - Opp.parties
2) M/S Quadro Digital System
217, M.R.D.Road,Chandmari,
Guwahati-21.
3) The Manager
M/S Quadro Digital System
217, M.R.D.Road,Chandmari,
Guwahati-21.
Appearance-
Learned advocates for the complainant- Mr.Murari Pandit
Learned advocates for the opp.party - Mr. Devraj Sahu
Date of argument- 15.5.18
Date of judgment- 31.5.18
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Mrs.Farida Yasmin against M/S Quadro Digital System and two others was admitted on 24.9.09 and notices were duly served on them and they also filed their written statement on 30.6.2011. Thereafter, the complainant filed her evidence on affidavit on 24.8.11 and she was cross-examined by the Ld.counsel of the opp.parties . Afterthat, the opp.parties filed the evidence of one Sri Dipak Ranjan Patgiri on affidavit and he was also cross-examined by the Ld counsel of the complainant. Then-after Ld advocate Mr.Murari Pandit filed written argument on behalf of the complainant and Ld.advocate Mr.Debraj Sahu for the opp.parties and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
2) The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that on 4.10.07 complainant had purchased a computer with a TFT monitor bearing No. CNC 781 Q 262 from the shop establishment under the name and style of M/S Quadro Digital System, 217, M.R.D.Road, Chandmari, Guwahati-21 (Opp.Party No.2) in consideration of Rs.40,350/- vide Money Receipt No.15 dtd.4.10.07 and the Retail Invoice No. 3495 dtd.4.10.07. At the time of purchase, the authorities of the said M/S Quadro Digital System, Chandmari,Guwahati-21 hereinafter called the dealer of H.P.Hardware informed the complainant that under the scheme of the Manufacturer if any defect or problem arose in the product or the unit is diagnosed as defective, the same will be immediately replaced without causing any loss in any way to the complainant as per the Advanced Unit Replacement Warranty Service and further added that the company makes no compromise so far the replacement is concerned as because the company is noted for its principles of working for full satisfaction of its customers. The complainant also informed the dealer i.e. Opp.Party No.2 that she was in a great necessity of a computer and she had saved the money with great difficulty for the purchase of a computer and the computer should not disturb her in any way. The Opp.Party No.2 assured the complainant that the computer would not cause any difficulty to her and in the event it causes any difficulty to her, the computer would be replaced by another computer without causing any difficulty to her . After four months of the purchase of the said computer , problems arose in it and it became difficult for the complainant to operate it. The complainant without any further delay complained and brought to the notice to the Opp.Party No.3 with regard to the defects in the computer and thereafter she also informed the local service centre named Redington India Ltd, Meenakshi Bhawan, Rajgorh Road,Guwahati-7. For redressing the grievance of the complainant, an amgineer named Mr.Swapan Saha of the said service centre came to the complainant on 6.3.2008 and after examination he found defects in the unit. Accordingly, the complainant approached the Opp.Party No.3 for its replacement , but nothing was done from the end of the Opp.Party No.3. The complainant , thereafter wrote to the Manufacturer company to take initiative for the replacement of the computer but perhaps because of furnishing a wrong address or because of furnishing half address by the opp.party No.3 to the complainant , the letter could not reach the destination and as a result of that the complainant has been suffering from mental and physical harassment and her work has been badly affected. On 17.3.2008 the said engineer Mr.Saha again came to complainant for examination of the unit and after his thorough examination of the unit and after his thorough examination he opined that the problem is “Big spot is coming on the monitor due to defective LCD” Thereafter Mr.Saha took the willingness of the complainant whereupon the complainant decided for the replacement of the unit which was endorsed at the back of his service call report bearing work order No. 1267 dtd.17.3.08, and that on a number of occasions the complainant approached the Opp.Party No.2 for the replacement of the defect unit,but the same was not replaced . Finding no way out, she sent a legal notice dated 30.4.2008 through her lawyer demanding the replacement of the defect unit with new one of similar description and free from any defect but the defect unit was not replaced, rather a reply to the legal notice was served upon the complainant’s lawyer showing some baseless grounds for their denial to replace the defect unit. Thereafter, another legal notice dated 7.1.09 was again sent to the opp. parties demanding to replace the defect unit with compensation and to pay the cost of the defect unit by making good all the losses sustained by the complainant, but the opp.parties neither replied to the said notice nor did they replace the same . The grounds taken by the opp.parties are not only repulsive to the principles of fair trade , but are also breach of the terms and conditions of warranty. There is no mistake and /or negligence on the part of the complainant and she is entitled for the replacement of the defect unit with new one having no defect at all. The complainant is also entitled to all consequential reliefs as per law because the opp.parties have reneged nor only the terms and conditions under the warranty facilities but have also reneged heir assurance of replacement of the unit if any defect was traced out in the unit by the complainant and as a result of that her worked has been badly affected and it has also caused much managed to her including her mental and physical tortures. The opp.parties have never given the full address of the manufacturing company to the complainant even after her perpetual pursuance to the opp.parties and as a result the letter sent to the Manufacturing company by the complainant could not reach the destination . However the complainant through the legal notice dated 7.1.09 expressed the same clearly to the opp.parties for intimating the matter through their own source to the Manufacturing Company. As the unit purchased by the complainant was defective one it ought to have been replaced by the opp.parties with a new one. For non-functioning of the said unit she suffered gross mental, physical and financial losses and she also losses in transacting her work which can be termed as acute loss in work and as such she is entitled to be made good all her losses caused by the opp.parties and opp.parties are liable to replace the unit with new one or in alternative to pay its cost which is Rs.40,350/- and also to pay her compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment to her,Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of work, Rs.10,000/- as expenses made on correspondence and lawyer’s fee.
3) The brief of the pleading of the opp.parties is that it is true that it is true that the complainant had purchased the alleged computer on 4.10.07 from the opp.parties in consideration of Rs.40,350/- with a replacement warranty clause as committed by the manufacturer in case of manufacturing defect and according to replacement warranty service “if a unit is diagnosed as defective, HP will replace the product direct to the customer and the manufactures shall get the product repaired if the product is repairable. Opp.party had given assurance that any case of manufacturing defect of the product they shall help her to get the product replaced with a new one as per warranty clause given by the manufacturer - HP. It is not fact that after four months of purchase of the said computer it started to give problems, but it is fact that Central Processing Unit of the said computer was functioning properly, but its monitor, Visual Display Unit was not functioning due application of external force applied on the LCD screen at the complainant’s end, causing crack on the LCD screen after four months of its purchase by her and there is no manufacturing defect in the LCD monitor as alleged by her. They attended the fault on the basis of complaint lodged by her and found that there is no manufacturing defect in the monitor (VDU)and problem arose in the monitor whichis due to application of external force on the LCD screen causing damage on the LCD screen causing a big spot, and the damage is not caused out of manufacturing defect. There service engineer has diagnosed the problem, but found that the problem was not due to in manufacturing defect. In para 10 of the complaint, it is submitted that the complainant has damaged the LCD, but applying external force and therefore, she is not entitled to replacement of the said LCD monitor. The opp.parties never committing in any breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty clause as well as the manufacturer has not giving any warranty for any damage caused at the customer’s end and so she is not entitled to replacement as per said warranty clause. The complainant never approached the manufacturer company for replacement of the product although address of manufacturer is displayed on the product itself and it is not true that they are not providing complete address of the manufacturer of the product. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief either from them or from this forum on the ground that the LCD monitor was damaged by the complainant herself.
4) We have perused the evidence of the complainant and the opp.parties and found that both sides admit that the complainant had purchased one computer with a TFT monitor bearing No. CNC 781 Q 262 from M/S Quadro Digital System, Chandmari (Opp.Party No.2) on payment of Rs.40,350/-
5) The complainant states in her evidence that after purchasing of the said computer it became difficult to operate it and then she immediately brought the matterto the notice of the Opp.Party No.3 and requested Opp.Party No.3 to replace it, but Opp.Party No.3 did nothing and then she wrote to the manufacturer of the computer, but her letter did not reach the manufacturer as Opp.Party No.3 had not given full address of the manufacturer. She further states that on 6.3.08 one engineer Mr.Swapan Saha came to her residence and he found, after examination of it, if defective and he again visited her residence on 17.3.08 and examined the computer and opined that the problem is that big spot is coming on the monitor due to defects in LCD, and thereafter she approached Opp.Party No.2 for replacement of defective unit, but the same was not replaced and then she sent the legal notice to the opp.parties demanding to replace the defective unit with compensation etc. and also to give the proper address of the manufacturing company, but the opp.parties neither replaced the defective unit nor gave the full address of the manufacturing company to her.
The opp.party side witness Sri Dipak Ranjan Patgiri, states in evidence that the complainant made a complaint to their service centre first on 29.2.2008 which was pending by the service centre on 17.3.2008, 18.3.2008 to resolve the problem of the monitor, but the complainant did not allow either to repair the VDU or to replace it ; and their service engineer found that it was a damage due to “Mura” which was affected due to application of external force applied on the face of the VDU and the VDU got damaged is not covered under warranty. He further states that according to replacement warranty service after a unit is diagnosed as defective, HP will ship a replacement product directly to the customer and the manufacturer shall get the product repaired if repairable. He further states that CPU was functioning, but VDU of the computer was not functioning due to application of external force applied on the LCD screen at the complainant’s end , causing crack on LCD screen after four months of its purchase by the complainant, but there is no manufacturing defect of the LCD as alleged by the complainant and their engineer was found the same result. He further states that the complainant never approached them to give her the address of the manufacturer of M/S HP. She is not entitled to get replacement of the whole unit as the CPU was in good condition and she is not entitled to get full cost of the computer, nor entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 60,350/-. In the cross examination, this witness admits that in the reply to the two legal notice sent by the complainant, they have not mentioned the address of the manufacturer. Thus , it is established that the opp.party side never give the address of the manufacturer to the complainant.
We have also found that in the warranty issued by the HP, it is quoted that if any defect is diagnosed in the unit, then HP will replaced the product directly to the purchaser. OPW further states that Mr.S.K.Saha (engineer)was sent by HP side to the residence of complainant to repair the computer, but she told him to replace the unit, but not to repair any particular parts and as per provision of “Advance Unit Replacement Service” Mr.Saha visited the residence of the complainant for the second time also and that time also the complainant demanded replacement of the computer, not the repairment. He further states that the meaning of “Mura” is not found in advance dictionary. From evidence of OPW, it is clear that after four months of purchasing the computer it had became difficult to operate, and immediately the complainant reported OPW for replacing the same and then the engineer of HP namely Mr.Swapan Saha visited the residence of the complainant on 29.2.2008 and he wrote a report after checking the computer which is Ex.B (6) and in B(6) he wrote that he checked the menu button, but it does not work and he again checked in the bios and found some problem and it is required to send the engineer to repair the monitor, and in the second time also Mr.Swapan Kr.Saha visited the residence of the complainant for repairing the computer, but could not repair it. We have perused Ex.B(6). B(6) which is a part of Ex.B (Work order details) shows that Mr.Swapan Saha checked the menu button, but found no use and he also checked the bios and found some problem, but he has not mentioned in Ex.B report to that effect that the monitor as well as Visual Display Unit of the computer was not functioning due to application of any external force, but he clearly states that he found the monitor and CPU were not functioning; he received snap shot from the s/c and forwarded the same to one Jamuna, he received reports from her where it is mentioned “Mura” defect and also received mail from Rekha Madam with report that the computer has “Mura” defect and the “Mura” defect is not recovered under warranty, because it comes under physical damage. From his statement, it is clear that neither Rekha Madam nor Jamuna physically examined the computer and they gave their opinion that the computer has “Mura” defect which Swapan Saha did not find. Secondly, the opp.party has not adduced the evidence of Swapan Kumar Saha (Engineer), Rekha Madam and Jamuna nor filed the reports of Rekha and Jamuna. It is also found that Opp.Party No.2 himself has not examined the computer. Thus, it is found that the “Mura” defect as said by the opp.party side is not established; rather the act of finding no damage or physical defect or impression on any part of the computer by S.K.Saha (Engineer) fully supports the statement of the complainant that the said computer automatically shows defects in its and that was also diagnosed by S.K.Saha (Engineer) and the defect was not caused due to application of external force. Thus, it is established that after four months of purchase of said computer by the complainant, the computer automatically showed problems due to its manufacturing defect and the problem was not for application of any external force etc.
6) From evidence of complainant, it is further found that the complainant repeatedly approached the opp.party to repair and to replace the computer and to give the address of manufacturer, but the Opp.Party No.2 himself admits that he has not given address of the manufacturer to the complainant and he also has not given said address to the complainant even after receiving the legal notices from the counsel of the complainant. Thus, it is established that the Opp.Party No.2 willfully hid the address of the manufacturer and did not provide it to the complainant.
7) It is found that it is both sides admitted fact that the warranty is for one year. The complainant version is that as its manufacturing defect shows entitled to get replacement of her computer Opp.Party No.2 is liable to replace the computer as they hid the address the manufacturer from her. From Ex.3, it is seen that when any unit of the computer is diagnosed as defective, HP will liable to replace the product directly to the complainant. In the warranty it is not explained who is HP and what is the meaning of HP. Thus, it is right on the part of complainant to ask for full address of and meaning of HP as well and it is the liability of the Opp.Party No.2 to give the full address and meaning of HP to the complainant, but the Opp.Party No.2 has not given full address and meaning of HP to the complainant and in result the complainant had to file this complaint without making HP a party in her complaint. We are of opinion that as Opp.Party No.2 has hidden the full address of HP from the complainant intentionally they are put in the shoe of HP, meaning thereby they are liable to repair or to replace the computer as per warranty. The opp.party sides’ ld.advocate submits that the engineer of the opp.parties attended the house of the complainant first on 6.3.2008 and second on 17.3.2008, but the complainant did not allow the engineer to repair the computer, but instead of that she is demanded replacement of defective piece of monitor and to told him that she will return the defective monitor after replacement within the stipulated period. This statement is found given by the complainant on the first visit of Mr.S.K.Saha (the Service Engineer) to her residence. We are of opinion that as the monitor retains manufacturing defect the complainant has right to ask to replace it with a new one as per warranty. From evidence it is also seen that S.K.Saha visited the residence of the complainant for the second time on 17.5.2008, and on that day also he has not replaced the defective monitor with a new one. As on the first visit the complainant asked for replacement of the defective monitor, S.K.Saha (the Service Engineer) on his second visit could have replaced the defective monitor with a new one and after 17.5.2008 also the opp.party side has not taken any step to replace the monitor. It is already found that the opp.party side fails to specify “Mura” defect in the computer and the computer retained manufacturing defect it and the opp.party side has not replaced the defective monitor and in result the computer has become non-operational. It is a case of 2009, nine (9) years has has elapsed and in the mean time the computer might have lost its durability. In such situation, the opp.party cannot be directed to replace the defective monitor. So, the complainant is entitled to get back the value of the computer which is Rs.40,350/- from Opp.Party No.2 with interest atleast @6% from the date of filing of the complaint (24.9,09).
8) By not replacing of the monitor of the said computer, the opp.party side caused professional loss and caused harassment to the complainant and also put her in mental agony. So the opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs.10,000/-as compensation to the complainant for such act. Thirdly, for no fault of the complainant she has to prosecute the opp.parties before this forum by spending a handsome amount. So, the opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding.
9) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against the opp.parties namely, M/S Quadro Digital, System,chandmari and two others is allowed on contest and, Sri Dipak Ranjan Patgiri, resident of Centuri Appt, Ganeshguri (P.S.Dispur), the proprietor of M/S Quadro Digital, System (Opp.Party No.1 & 2 is directed to refund the value of the defective computer which had been sold to the complainant by them which is Rs.40,350/- with interest @ 6% from 24.9.09 and also to pay her Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing professional loss and for causing harassment to her as well as for putting her in mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding. He is directed to comply with the judgment within 45 days , in default, other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.
Given under our hands and seal on this 31th May ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
