BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 100/2008 Filed on 14.05.2008

Dated : 16.03.2009

Complainant:

Kanakadas, Ayyathumoola, T.C 19/1533, Thamalam, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Pramod Chandran)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Wipro Info Tech, Professional Service Division, Doddakannelli, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore – 560 035 represented by its Authorised signatory.

    

2. INFO-CARE System, 'Bethel', T.C 27/390, Near A.K.G Centre, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Authorised Signatory.

This O.P having been heard on 02.02.2009, the Forum on 16.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The facts that leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant had purchased a WL G7 130-0008-WIPRO 7130 Note Book (Laptop) on 22.05.2007 from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 57,200/-. The 1^st opposite party, M/s Wipro Infotech is the manufacturer. From the first week of purchase onwards the system showed certain defects. The first defect regarding touch pad was rectified by the technician of the 2^nd opposite party on 31.05.2007. Thereafter new defects were found in the system. Even though it was assured that inbuilt blue tooth facility has been provided in the system to the surprise of the complainant it was found that the said facility is not available in the system. That defect was informed to the 2^nd opposite party and a technician was deputed to attend the complaint. The technician admitted that he could not rectify the defects. Another major defect was within the LCD panel. On 29.10.2007 the complainant mailed a detailed complaint to the 1^st opposite party and based on that complaint on 30.10.2007 a technician attended the complaint and he had taken the laptop to the service centre after giving assurance that the system would be returned after rectification of defects within 10 days. But the opposite parties returned the laptop without rectifying the defects stating that the defect was physical and defective parts could not be replaced. The complainant alleges that the laptop is having inherent manufacturing defects and the act of selling defective goods amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

Opposite parties remain exparte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 12 documents to prove his case. As per the application filed by the complainant this Forum has appointed a commissioner to examine and assess the condition of laptop and the commissioner has filed the report before this Forum.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

    

Points (i)&(ii):- The case of the complainant in short is that the laptop is having inherent manufacturing defect and the defects cannot be rectified. To prove his case the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and the opposite parties did not turn up to contest the case. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. P1 to P12. Ext. P1 is the cash receipt of the Note Book dated 22.05.2007 for an amount of Rs. 57,200/-. Ext. P2 is the product installation report. Ext. P3 is the customer call feed back report dated 31.05.2007. This documents shows that the laptop became defective from the very beginning of the purchase date. Ext. P4 is the customer call feed back report dated 30.10.2007. This document shows that the laptop is having display problem. Ext. P5 is the customer call feed back report of 19.11.2007. Exts. P6 to P8 are the copies of e-mails send by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding the defects of the laptop. Ext. P9 is the reply sent by the opposite party on 19.11.2007. Ext. P10 is the copy of lawyer's notice send to the opposite parties by the complainant. Ext. P11 is the returned acknowledgement card signed by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. P12 is the reply notice of the opposite parties. Through the reply notice the opposite parties informed the complainant that the defects occurred due to physical damage and therefore it is rectifiable only on chargeable basis. In this case this Forum appointed Mr. Abdul Rahiman, Senior Lecturer, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, LBS Engineering College, Poojappura as the expert commissioner. He examined and assessed the laptop and filed a report and the report was marked as Ext. C1. He reported that Á black line across the LCD screen is seen. There was also a cluster of black dots on the other parts of the screen. This is because of the problem with LCD Panel. And also he reported that there is no evidence for the physical damage.

The complainant in this case succeeded to prove his case with his pleadings and documents. From the recorded evidences we find that the defects were due to the manufacturing defect of the laptop and not due to physical damage, and the commissioner stated that there is no physical damage on the laptop. The technician of the opposite parties stated that the defect cannot be rectified. The laptop is having 1 year warranty and the defects were found within a few days from the date of purchase. Hence the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects free of cost or to replace it with a new one. But the opposite parties did not do so. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to replace a new laptop to the complainant or to pay Rs. 57,200/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand two hundred only), the price of the laptop to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and shall also pay Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% annual interest also shall be paid to the above said amounts till the date of realization.

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 Forum, this the day of 16^th March 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 100/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Tax invoice dated 22.05.2007 No. 1672 for Rs. 57,200/-.

P2 - Product Installation Report dated 22.05.2007.

P3 - Customer Call Feed Back report dated 31.05.2007.

P4 - Customer Call Feed Back report dated 30.10.2007.

P5 - Customer Call Feed Back report dated 19.11.2007with call

registration No. 31447.

P6 - Copy of the e-mail send on 29.10.2007.

P7 - Copy of the e-mail send on 19.11.2007.

P8 - Copy of the e-mail send on 31.10.2007.

P9 - Copy of reply received on 19.11.2007.

P10 - Copy of advocate notice dated 28.12.2007

P11 - Acknowledgement card.

P12 - Reply notice dated 23.01.2008.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBIT:

C1 - Commission Report.

PRESIDENT