CC No.142.2016

Filed on.29.01.2016

Disposed on.21.08.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF AUGUST 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.142/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                             V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 29.01.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to replace the existing defective and under-performing Laptop at the earliest with a newly functional laptop which performs and has all the features functioning as per specifications or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.65,397.90/-, to pay an amount of interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.65,397.80/- from the date of purchase of the Laptop, to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost and other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he has purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop along with an extended warranty for a period of 2 years and MS Office Software etc. from the 1^st Opposite Party on 27.04.2013 for a consolidated price of Rs.65,397.80/-.  The payment was made through Complainant’s Credit Card.  Since the Complainant took an extended warranty of 2 Years from 1^st Opposite Party, the warranty period for the said laptop expires on 26.04.2016.  The said laptop is manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The 3rd Opposite Party is the Authorized Service Centre.  The Complainant ever since the date of purchase of the laptop, has been facing multiple issues with the same due to which he had to visit the 3^rd Opposite Party time and again seeking rectification of the defects in the Laptop.  The Complainant informs that he had visited the 3^rd Opposite Party almost 6 times within a year of having purchased the said Laptop.  The Complainant has time and again written various number of e-mails and called numerous times to get the problem fixed by the 3^rd Opposite Party.  The Complainant is working as Director in M/s Professional Access Resources Consulting Private Limited.  The Complainant has purchased the said Laptop which is a higher end version in order to facilitate work and to have conference calls and to meet clients over the internet forum with his international clients.  Since the built-in features and facilities that ensure Wife connectivity is malfunctioning, the Complainant is unable to use the said Laptop to the fullest potential and use to its best. The Complainant has faced lot of troubles with work as the Laptop needs to be used as a Desktop and the Complainant need not have bought this higher end version by spending so much when the features which ae promised by the 2^nd Opposite Party are not working and the Laptop is under performing.  The Complainant informs that the 3^rd Opposite Party has changed the motherboard of the laptop twice; however the same is still malfunctioning.  Due to this the Complainant was unable to utilize the laptop to its fullest extent and has suffered and continues to suffer heavily at the workplace where he was time and again reprimanded for failure to deliver work on time.  The Complainant’s credibility at work was questioned and was affected due to the poor functioning of the Laptop as the defect goes a long way incompletion of tasks and assignment given to him and the lack of appropriate Wife resulted in poor communication and communication gap at work.  The Complainant has further written a mail addressing to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party on 15.05.2014 wherein he explained the issue and the problems suffered by him and demanded for replacement of the Laptop at the earliest.  To get this problem rectified the Complainant has time and again ran from pillar to post and unfortunately none of the Opposite Parties have bothered to rectify the problem.  The 3^rd Opposite Party has replaced the defective laptop of the Complainant.  The 3^rd Opposite Party informed the Complainant to collect the laptop vide E-mail dt.25.06.2014.  A copy of the E-mail dt.25.06.2014 written by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant.  The Complainant informs that the aforesaid laptop was then replaced by the 2^nd Opposite Party in the Month of June 2014, however even this laptop failed to function properly.  So the Complainant issued an email to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party dt.21.07.2014 wherein the Complainant gave a detailed description of all the issues concerning the said laptop.  The main issues complained were that the Wi-Fi Card was faulty and even to this day this is a biggest malfunctioning concern which continues and the is feature is a basic feature which is one of the main features as claimed by the product, touch pad/mouse pad still continues to be malfunctioning and the Audio Devices/Driver was faulty.  In addition, it was also brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties that the said laptop had already been sent once for servicing i.e., to set right OS and Vaiocare installation faults and associated troubles.  The Complainant has also informed the Opposite Parties to resolve the issues concerning the laptop at the earliest.  Unfortunately none of the Opposite Parties have bothered to respond to the requests raised by the Complainant at all which clearly shows the laxity and evasiveness on their part having understood clearly that the Opposite Parties have provided the Complainant with a faulty laptop.  The Complainant has spent a valuable money of about Rs.65,397.80/- and purchased a higher end version laptop from the Opposite Parties only to face these inherent defects in the Laptop which was not even set right by the concerned Opposite Party even after complaining and giving the Laptop for service within warranty time.  The Complainant sent another reminder by way of email to the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 on 02.09.2014 and once again this mail was not met with any reply.   Having no other option, the Complainant once again went and deposited the said laptop to the 3^rd Opposite Party who is the Authorized Service Centre on 03.09.2014.  However, the 3^rd Opposite Party with an intention to evade any responsibility feigned an inspection of the laptop and returned the same stating that everything was in order.  Further, the 3^rd Opposite Party was clever enough to state that he said Laptop was out of warranty.   The 3^rd Opposite Party provided an explanation that since it was a replaced laptop, the extended warranty that was obtained by the Complainant at the time of purchase would not apply to this laptop.  It is a matter of common parlance when a defective laptop which has an extended warranty is replaced the extended warranty continues to apply to the replaced laptop.  These actions clearly amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and a clear evasion responsibility.  In order to provide one last opportunity before exploring legal remedies, the Complainant issued another email dt.08.10.2014to the 2^nd and 3^rd Complainant issued another email dt.08.10.2014 to the 2^nd and3rd Opposite Party wherein he clearly set his demands to the Opposite Parties.  Despite having received all the aforesaid correspondence and despite the glaring deficiency and high-handedness on your part, the Opposite Parties have failed to respond to any of the Complainant’s correspondence to the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant received a letter from the 2^nd Opposite Party calling upon him to again given the laptop for service in case the problem persisted and also the letter informs that the Complainant’s laptop has no defects and that the laptop is absolutely fine. This cannot be the approach of the Opposite Parties when the defect in the laptop is glaring and the same has already been replaced by the Opposite Party in 2014 itself.  The Complainant has issued a Legal Notice dt.15.10.2015 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to replace the said defective laptop or in the alternate to refund the entire amount paid as consideration along with damages as stated in the Legal Notice.  The said Legal Notice was served on the Opposite Parties and the 2^nd Opposite Party has replied to the Legal notice vide reply dt.05.11.2015 calling upon the Complainant to deposit the laptop at the authorized service centre for necessary inspection and service support and have blindly denied the other contents of the Legal Notice mentioned supra.  The Complainant sent a rejoinder to the reply notice mentioned stating that the Complainant is unwilling the deposit the laptop for further service and repair as the Opposite Parties have time and again returned the laptop without fixing the defects permanently.  The act of the Opposite Parties providing a defective and underperforming laptop not only speaks of gross impropriety on the part of the Opposite Parties but also smacks of high-handedness,  glaring deficiency of service, callousness, negligence, cheating, unfair trade practice and clear dereliction of responsibility and duty owed to the Complainant who is a customer and consumer of your product.  Till date the Opposite Parties have only been evading the Complainant’s legitimate demands as regards his laptop which has been purchased by him out of his hard-earned monthly savings.  The defective laptop has caused utmost mental agony to the Complainant since he was unable to work efficiently on the same and as a result suffered in producing results at work as well.  The Complainant has run from pillar to post and has visited the 3^rd Opposite Party almost 8 times is order to fix the laptop, however to no avail and this also taken a toll physically on the Complainant. The delay in fixing the defective laptop by collecting the price of the laptop and also the warranty amounts to deficiency of service and falls clearly within the ambit of Section2(g) and 2(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   Hence, this complaint. 

3. Even though notice was served on the Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 fails to put their appearance.  Hence placed ex-parte. 
4. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their Counsel, in the version pleaded that every averment, statement, allegation and contention made by the Complainant which is contrary are denied. The complaint is frivolous apt illustration of flagrant abuse of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, each time the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties, he has been provided with a service solution each time.  The Complainant had purchased a Laptop in the brand name of Sony Model No.SVF14A15SN, Serial No.0000155. The Complainant approached the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Parties on 08.03.2014 and 15.03.2014 with an issue of Blue Screen Error in the said Laptop.  After the inspection by the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties it was found that there was some issue in the said Laptop.  However, the Opposite Parties replaced the MBX vide job sheets No.J40483099 and J40538223 without any charge and the Laptop was accepted by the Complainant without any protest.  That the Complainant again approached the Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Parties on 24.03.2014 with an issue of Not Powering on battery mode in the set.  On the inspection by the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties it was found that there was some issue and hence the Opposite Parties again replace the MBX vide job sheet No.J40592773 free of cost and the set was accepted by the Complainant with full satisfaction. Thereafter, the Complainant again approached the Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Parties on 02.04.2014 with an issue of Lan Port.  On the inspection by the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties it was found that there was some issue and hence replaced the MBX vide job sheet No.J40666241 without any charge and the set was accepted by the Complainant without any protest.  That the Complainant again approached the Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Parties on 15.05.2014 with an issue of Speaker.  After the inspection by the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties replaced with new one bearing Sl.No.0000443 without any charge and delivered to the Complainant with full satisfaction vide Job Sheet No.J41011920 on 23.06.2016.  The last service request was at M/s Sonnet Care Bangalore on 18.11.2014, the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Parties with an issue of Wifi Intermittently working, USB port lose touchpad and keyboard.  On inspection and analysis by the Opposite Parties, it was found that Software needs to be upgraded.  Accordingly, the Software was upgraded and the set was made in the working condition as per the standards and the same was informed to the Complainant.  The set was collected by the Complainant on 03.12.2014 after due inspection.  That there was no other service request received by the Opposite Parties for the above subjected model. Thus it is apparent that the Complainant is pursuing the present complaint in most unfair manner for illegal enrichment and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The Complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the Laptop but the same cannot be determined on the simpliciter submission of Complainant as he has failed to produce any cogent and substantive evidence.  It is a settled proposition of law.  Thus there is no lack of deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has made a case which is completely false and frivolous in nature.    Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

5. The Complainant, Sri.Padmanabhan filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 to 3, the affidavit of one Sri.Meena Bose has been filed.   Heard the arguments of both parties.

6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Negative

POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also the version of the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 27.04.2013 the Complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop along with Opposite Party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.65,397.80/-.   Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Invoice. As looking into this document, it is clear that the Complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop with Opposite Party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.65,397.80/- on 27.04.2013.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant purchased a Sony Vaio Laptop on 27.04.2013 from Opposite Party No.1 by paying consideration of Rs.65,397.80/-.

9. It is further allegations of the Complainant ever since the date of purchase of the laptop has been facing multiple issues with the same due to which he had to visit the 3^rd Opposite Party time and again seeking rectification of the defects in the Laptop. In support of this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the e-mail communications.  Even by looking into this evidence, it is very clear that as requested by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have replace the defective laptop it is clear as looking into the email dt.25.06.2014.  This email sent by M/s Sonnet Care Private Limited i.e., Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant informing to replacement Vaio Laptop.  Accordingly, the Complainant collected a Sony Vaio Laptop.

10. The replaced laptop was failed to function properly. The Complainant issued an email to the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party dt.21.07.2014 in support of this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the e-mail and also Service Job Sheet.  By looking into these documents, it is clear that retest laptop also malfunctioning, for that reason the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 on 03.09.2014.  As looking into the Service Job Sheet No.J41997275 with respect to the Sony Laptop belongs to the Complainant.  The Complaint of the Complainant is regarding speaker Jaring Wifi not working.  Except this, the Complainant in his complaint has not making any allegation that the Laptop purchased by him and replaced Laptop of manufactured defect and also he has not placed any evidence to show that the Laptop purchased by the Complainant and also the Laptop replaced by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant is of manufactured defect so has to ordered to refund the value of the laptop. 

11. On the other hand, as the defence taken by the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties have attended the issues with the laptop purchased by the Complainant as and when the Complainant purchased with the Opposite Parties, in support of his defence, Ms.Meena Bose, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.2, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Retail Invoice/Cash Memo/Bill.  By looking into this document, with respect to Job Sheet No.J40483099 dt.08.03.2014 this is with respect to the Laptop belongs to the Complainant.  It is further clear that the MBX has been replaced without free of cost.  As looking into the Invoice issued by the Opposite Parties, it is with respect to Job Card No.J40538223 dt.15.03.2014 again the Opposite Party attended the complaint of the Complainant in respect of his Laptop and replace the MBX with new one on free of cost.  So also with respect to the Invoice which is in respect of Job Card No.J40592773 dt.24.03.2014 again the Opposite Parties by replace the MBX with new one on free of cost and Invoice dt.02.04.2014 with respect to Job Card No.J40666241 clearly shows that the Opposite Parties have replace the MBX on free of cost and Invoice dt.18.11.2014 with respect to Job Card No.J42886111, it is with respect to Wifi problem and the said problem was solved at free of cost.  From these evidence, it is very clear that the Opposite Parties have attended regularly as and when the Complainant approached with problems found in the laptop purchased by the Complainant.  Thereby, there is no deficiency of service as against the Opposite Party No.3.  Furthermore as stated earlier, the Complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention that there is a manufactured defect.  Apart from that as looking into the Reply issued by the Opposite Parties.  In response to the Legal Notice dt.15.10.2015 the Opposite Parties have clearly informed that the request for symptom “Wi Fi intermittently working, USB port loose touchpad and keyboard to be checked” on 08.11.2014 vide Job No.J42886111, On inspection and analysis on the product, Engineer found that software upgrade needs to be done.  Accordingly, the software upgrade was done and set was made in working condition as per the standards and was informed to the Complainant to collect from the service centre.  On 03.12.2014 after inspection collected the said laptop.  Nodoubt, the Complainant issued Rejoinder to this Reply on 25.11.2015, in their rejoinder they denied and contends made in the reply notice.  On the other hand, the Complainant have not placed any evidence to show that there is a manufactured defect in the Laptop purchased by the Complainant.  Therefore, the Complainant fails to prove the allegations made in the complaint.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 21^st day of August 2017).

            MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mr.Padmanabhan, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of the payment receipt dt.27.04.2013
2. Copy of the written mail dt.15.05.2014
3. Copy of the E-mail dt.25.06.2014
4. Copy of the written mail dt.21.07.2014
5. Copy of the written mail dt.02.09.2014
6. Copy of the Service Job Sheet dt.03.09.2014
7. Copy of the written mail dt.08.10.2014
8. Copy of the Legal Notice
9. Copy of the Receipt
10. Acknowledgement
11. Copy of the rejoinder notice dt.25.11.2015.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Meena Bose, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party  No.2 by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copy of Retail Invoices

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT