DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 01/11/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                           President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member

C.C. NO. 456/2018

COMPLAINANT

K.L. Satheesh, S/o. Lohidhakshan, Kochuparambil House, Aroor P.O., Alappuzha 688534.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Sysmantech, Near Sharaf Hospital, MG. Road, Ravipuram, Ernakulam 682016.

(Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil Associates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682 036)

2. Wipro, C/o. Volta Technology Soluttions Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 39/3723, 1^st Floor, SR Complex, Ravipuram Road, Valanjambalam, Kochi 682016.
3. M/s. HP INC, 2^nd Floor, 24, Sala Puria Arena, Hosure Mani Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka State, Pin 560029

(Rep. by Adv. A.A. Jaleel, Chamber No. 142, 1^st Floor, KHCAA J Chamber Complex, Near High Court Ernakulam 31)

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant is an authorized agent of insurance companies viz. National Insurance Company, United India Insurance Co. etc. He has been doing the service functions online using his laptop. The opposite party is a firm dealing with the sales and service of computers of various configuration and brands. The complaint approached the 1^st opposite party and upon receiving and viewing demonstrations made by the 1^st opposite party, purchased one Hp 15-9Y-019TU laptop on 16/07/2016 from the 1^st opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.28,000/- paid in cash. The laptop has a warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase and payment for extended warranty was also effected ie. upto 16/06/2019. But immediately after the purchase some defects noticed with respect to the display of the computer. The laptop became unfit for usage on 04/02/2017 and hence the 1^st complainant was placed before the opposite party and the laptop was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party on 04/02/2017. The defect noticed was display flittering. Subsequently the laptop returned on 09/2/2017 informing the complainant that the defect was rectified. The laptop became defective once again on 31/05/2017. The defect detected was again ‘display white sport’. After a short span of 3 months period the laptop went out of order again. Hence the complainant registered the complaint for the 3^rd time and handed over the product to the opposite party. This time also the defect reported was ‘display issue’ and the good returned only on 30/08/2017 informing the complainant that the defect has been rectified perfectly. The laptop became not in working condition for the 4^th time on 14/03/2018. Hence the complainant handed over the laptop to 2^nd opposite party for service. The complainant was informed that the defect noticed was ‘red colour display’ and the product was returned after service on 15/03/2018. Immediately after 4 months the system became defective and the same was again handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for service on 09/08/2018. The defect detected again was ‘display issue’. The 1^st opposite party has not done any positive steps to get the laptop replaced all these years. The laptop suffers from the defect of ‘display issue’ since it was purchased in 2016. The complainant has made all the actions for the redressal of the grievances. Despite all the pleadings of the complainant the opposite parties have not replaced the laptop. The complainant sustained financial losses on account of the derelictions of duty of the opposite parties.

2) NOTICE

The notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 11/10/2019. Upon notice 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version. The notice to the 2^nd opposite party returned on 14/10/2019 with an endorsement ‘no such addressee’.

On 30/01/2021 the complainant has filed an I.A. 132/2020 to implead the manufacturer of the laptop supplied by the opposite party. I.A. 132/2020 heard and allowed. M/s. HP INC, 2^nd Floor, 24, Sala Puria Arena, Hosure Mani Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka State, Pin 560029 is impleaed as 3^rd opposite party in the opposite party array. Consequently notice sent to the 3^rd opposite party also returned. On 17/04/2021. Learned counsel for the complainant furnished the fresh address of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and notice were repeated to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties seen served. Upon notice 3^rd opposite party appeared and filed their version. 2^nd opposite party not appeared and version filed. Hence 2^nd opposite party was set as ex-parte.

3)VERSION OF  1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY

  The Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The manufacturer of the laptop is absolutely necessary for the just adjudication of the issues involved in this case. As per the warranty policy of the manufacturer the complainant has to approach the authorized service centre of M/s. P Inc. Hence complainant has not reported any of the service requirements to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party submitted that they are an unnecessary party to this consumer complaint. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized dealer of the manufacturer of HP products and various other brands. The complainant has not informed the 1^st opposite party about any defects of the goods purchased from the 1^st opposite party. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

4) Version of 3^rd opposite party

The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegation of the defects in the laptop without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/Section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act.

It is well established proposition of law that, a person who claims any defect in the product of any renowned company, the onus lies on him to prove the said allegations of manufacturing defect in the laptop with supporting documents of proof but in the present case, the complainant miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect. The instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The onus lies on the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated under Section 14 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and/or deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

5) Evidence

The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided 9 supporting documents. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to substantiate his claims. Eventhough 9 documents were filed along with the complaint, these 9 documents were not marked as evidence.

 6) The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issues No. 1 and 2 together.

This complainant failed to appear before the Commission or to present any evidence on his behalf. The hearing to present the complainant’s evidence was initially scheduled on 14/02/2023 and then adjourned to 11/04/2023. On 11/04/2023, the complainant has not adduced any evidence. The complainant’s evidence was adjourned to 30/05/2023 as ‘LC’. On 30/05/2023 also the complainant did not present any evidence and was notably absent on the next hearing on 10/08/2023, reflecting a pattern on non-adducal of evidence. As a result on 10/08/2023 the Commission instructed the Registry to inform the complainant over his phone requesting the presence of the complainant and submission and adducal of evidence. The complainant was informed over the phone No. 9846909916, on 11/08/2023 at 2.48 pm. Neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared on the subsequent date of hearing on 13/10/2023. The Commission observed that the failure to provide evidence demonstrate a lack of interest in perusing the case eventhough ample chances were given to the complainant to adduce evidence. Despite multiple opportunities, the complainant neither submitted his required evidence nor demonstrated interest in passing the case. It is well established in legal directions that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by providing evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support a claim. Therefore the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.

In the case of SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that it is the complainant who had approached the Commission therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party can’t be held responsible for deficiency in service.

The initial onus to prove any deficiency of service or manufacturing defect of the phone is upon the complainant who alleges it. The complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the opposite party. In conclusion the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore the complaint is dismissed and no relief is granted to the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we ground that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.

O R D E R

Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                    

kp/

CC No. 456/2022

Order Date: 29/10/2024