BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 259/2012 Filed on 06/08/2012

ORDER DATED:  08.12.2021

The order delivered on 08/12/2021

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

1. The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant is a dentist by profession and she is running a dental clinic in the name & style ‘ Lavania Dental Clinic’.  The complainant purchased a laptop on 29-8-2011 – Toshiba Satellite C 600- from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the laptop. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,550/-. The complainant had opted for an extended one year warranty for the said Laptop on additional payment of Rs.2,950/-.  From the very first week of purchase, the Laptop was not working properly.  The same was used by the complainant in her Dental Clinic solely to run a Specialist RVG Software for storing and manipulating the X-ray images.  When the complainant intimated the 2^nd opposite party about the non-functioning of the Laptop, the 2^nd opposite party intimated the complainant that servicing is done by the 3^rd opposite party and asked the complainant to contact the 3^rd opposite party.  In a span of 3 months from September to December 2011 the Laptop was taken to the 3^rd opposite party for repair.  On the 3^rd visit in December, the hard disk was replaced.  On 4^th of January 2012 the Laptop was again taken to the 3^rd opposite party as the defect was persisting.  The 3^rd opposite party then changed the mother board of the Laptop.  But after each repair the Laptop regularly failed after 3 to 4 days of working.  Failure was always being by way of hanging up, keyboard freezing and inability to start the Laptop.  To restart the Laptop the same has to be taken to the 3^rd opposite party and there they reset the machine and give it back.  Even after all these major repairs, the same defect was persisting.  After the fifth visit the complainant being fed up contacted area Manager of the 3^rd opposite party, who arranged for another Laptop to be given to the complainant to test whether the software used by the complainant is the cause of hang up.  The said Laptop was used for almost a month in March 2012 and never once gave any problem.  The complainant reverted to her own Laptop by the end of March, 2012; the defect persisted and hence the same was again entrusted for repair for the 6^th time after its purchase on 30/03/2012.  The objective of the complainant was to run a software programme to aid her in her day to day work but instead the complainant was put to a lot of mental agony and harassment.  The spare Laptop made available to the complainant on a test basis was used by the complainant for almost a month without any problem in March, 2012.  The 3^rd opposite party took back the spare Laptop by the end of March and returned the defective Laptop making the complainant believe that it has been set right.  On reverting to the said Laptop the same promptly failed and the complainant handed it over to Toshiba Service Centre on 30^th March, 2012 for repair for the 6^th time.  The laptop was purchased by the complainant for her Dental Clinic solely to run a Specialist RVG Software for storing and manipulating the X-ray images.  The frequent and prolonged retention of the laptop by the authorized repair agent had seriously hampered the RVG operation at the clinic causing much hardship and mental strain to the complainant.  The complainant caused to send a Lawyer’s notice on 11/04/2012.  The 3^rd opposite party had contacted the lawyer over telephone and requested to bring the defective Laptop to their shop which itself is sheer negligence.  Then on knowing that the laptop is in their shop, they send a letter dated 22/05/2012 directing the complainant to take back the Laptop.  The complainant promptly send a reply dated 07/06/2012 to the said letter dated 22/05/2012 which was received by the complainant only on 30/05/2012.  The frequent break down of the Laptop necessitating it to be taken 6 times in a span of 6 months is nothing but a major defect in the machine.  The complainant was put to a lot of mental agony and hardship because of the irresponsible and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties.  The complainant on 11/04/2012 sent a statutory notice to all the opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party send a reply raising untenable contentions.  But till date the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have not cared to send any reply.  The Laptop is having an inherent manufacturing defect.  The after sales service of the opposite parties was also very poor.  The indifferent and callous attitude of the opposite parties in dealing with the complainant’s complaint is nothing but sheer deficiency in their service.   Hence this complaint.
2.  Even though the Opposite parties 1 to 3 received notice, 3^rd opposite party did not appear before this commission and 3^rd opposite party was set ex parte.
3.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 appeared and filed version.  1^st opposite party has averred that the complaint is vexatious, baseless & is liable to be dismissed.  The 1^st opposite party is engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of various electronics items under the brand name of “TOSHIBA” and it holds an impeccable position in the electronic industry in India.  The products of the 1^st opposite party are sold to customers through a network of its authorized dealers and services are provided through a network of authorized service centers across the country.  The complainant had admittedly purchased a Laptop Model Toshiba Satellite C600 from the opposite party 2 who is one of the dealer of 1^st opposite party.  The said Laptop was perfectly working at the time of delivery and the complainant after being satisfied with the working of the laptop took the delivery.  Opposite party provides a warranty of one year on ‘laptop’ wherein the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and condition of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims failing outside the scope of the warranty.  In terms of the warranty stipulated by the 1^st opposite party the same is for a period of one year which was extended for another year, from the date of original purchase only and the 1^st opposite party is obliged to repair or replace the Field Replaceable Unit (FRU) with a new or qualified used FRU, in the occurrence of any failures or defects covered under the warranty during the period of the warranty and the 1^st opposite party duly discharged its responsibility in this regard.  The complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended every time by the opposite party 3.  It is clear under the terms of warranty that the 1^st opposite party is liable only to repair the laptop of the complainant and not to replace the same unless the same suffers from the manufacturing defect, which is admittedly not the case with the laptop of the complainant.  The complaint of the complainant was registered/ledged with ID No.TIPL:OL:112911-15 dated 28/11/2012 and after examining the laptop the hard disk was replaced with a new and the complaint of the complainant was closed on 07/12/2011.  The complainant again made a complaint on 24/01/2012, which was registered with ID No.TIPL:OL:112412-129 and after examining the laptop by the engineer of the 1^st opposite party no problem whatsoever was found and the complaint of the complainant was closed on 27/01/2012.  That the complainant again made a complaint on 30/03/2012, which was registered with ID No.TIPL:OL:040212-179 and after examining replaced the motherboard and the complaint was closed on 18/04/2012.  All the replacement and repair were performed free of cost.  Soon after the repair conducted, the complainant was informed to collect the laptop to which the complainant refused and started making illegal demand for the replacement of the laptop.  The laptop of the complainant lying at the authorized Service centre of the 1^st opposite party is in fully working condition.  Hence complaint may be dismissed.
4. Opposite party 2 has stated in their version that they are admitting the extended warranty for one year.  The laptop was working properly when it was sold from the shop of the 2^nd opposite party.  The advice to the complainant that she should approach the 3^rd opposite party for repair and service during the first year of purchase of the laptop is perfectly correct.  This is to help the complainant to avail her right of warranty against 1^st opposite party available during the first year.  The 3^rd opposite party having entertained the complainant and attended to the defect of the laptop shows that the advice the 2^nd opposite party was right.  What had happened thereafter between complainant and 3^rd opposite party/1^st opposite party are matters to be dealt with themselves under manufacturer’s warranty during the first year of purchase.   The reply to advocate notice dated 11/04/2012 of the complainant given by the 2^nd opposite party is perfectly correct.  As regards extended warranty, the same is to commence on the 2^nd year of purchase.  But the laptop having found to have manufacturing defect during the first year itself, and the same stands detected by the 3^rd opposite party who is authorised agent to undertake the service/repair of the laptop during the first year of purchase on behalf of the 1^st opposite party, it is the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party that are to compensate the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party has helped the complainant get the defect attended by the 3^rd opposite party itself as otherwise, if a third party (including 2^nd opposite party) happened to open the laptop, the same would have affected the manufactures warranty liability.   There is no deficiency on the part of 2^nd opposite party,  hence complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 2^nd opposite party.
5. Issues to be ascertained:
   1. Whether there is manufacturing defect or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3 ?
   2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

6. Points (i) & (ii):- The authorized representative of the complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 11 documents which were marked as Ext. P1 to P11 and the commission report was marked as Ext.C1. Even though sufficient opportunities were given to opposite parties 1 & 2 they have not adduced any evidence.  The laptop was purchased by the complainant on 29/8/2011, which is evident from Ext P1.  It is admitted by 1^st opposite party that the complaint of the laptop was rectified by replacing the hard disk & mother board.  It can be seen from Ext P3, that the mother board has been replaced in January, 2012.  From Exts P3, P4, P5 & P7 it is evident that the laptop was taken for repair within a short span of time from the date of purchase.  It is also admitted by 2^nd opposite party that the laptop was having manufacturing defects.  In the commission report also it is mentioned that the hard disk & mother board was changed.  Even though 1^st opposite party has filed objection to the commission report they have not taken any steps to disprove the same.
7. We are of the opinion that there is no provision in Consumer Protection Act that absolves the manufacturer of goods from the liability to compensate having sold defective goods. Sec 2(1)(f) of the Act  states:

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or  [under any contract, express or implied, or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

8. The fact remains that law framers had provided such strict guidelines against those manufactures who provides defective products to exploit consumers.  It also remains a fact that any person who buys a product does so with an object that the same will provide comfort and peace of mind, however, if such a product starts giving trouble & the consumer is made to visit the service centre time & again then it is definitely an area of concern as it is clear case of mental agony, pain & harassment.
9.  Hence we find that the complainants have succeeded in proving her case and the laptop is having manufacturing defects. Since 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are the authorized dealer & authorized service centre respectively they are also liable to the act done by 1^st opposite party.  Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs 28,500/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Only) & can take back the laptop & pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. from 06.08.2012.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 08^th  day of December  2021.

                        Sd/-

              P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

                       Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

                       Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

                                                  C.C. No. 259/2012

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

V         COURT EXHIBIT:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT