Date of filing : 24.05.2010<br /> Date of Order: 01.12.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 1st DAY OF DECEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1183 OF 2010<br /> <br /> Sri A.R. Holla,<br /> S/o late A.Narnappayya,<br /> 1029, 3rd Main Road,<br /> Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Caddons Computer Service Pvt., Ltd.,<br /> C-5 & 6, Unity Building,<br /> J.C.Road, Bangalore-2.<br /> By its Manager. Opposite party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased Laptop from the opposite party on 16-6-2009 for Rs.30,345/-. The opposite party had assured that if any defect is found within one year same would be repaired with free of charge or instrument would be replaced. After a few months of purchase, the laptop found defective one and “windows” crashed a number of times. It was not possible to use it. On 17-4-2010 it was given for service though it was under warranty period the opposite party charged Rs.800/- for repair charges. Again after 2 days the computer encountered same problem and same was enable to the opposite party for repairs again on 3-5-2010. The concerned mechanic of the opposite party shop informed that there was a hardware problem and needs replacement. The computer was not repaired even after a week. There was no proper response from the opposite party. The complainant contacted the call center, the complainant being an advocate urgently required for his professional work. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The complainant had purchased new computer, opposite party neither returned the computer nor repair the computer. This action would cause to deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant be prayed to opposite party be directed to refund Rs.30,345/- with interest. <br /> 2. The opposite party had filed defense version, admitting that the complainant had purchased Lenovo Laptop for Rs.30,345/- on 16-6-2009. The opposite party is dealer of the laptop. The company is also necessary party for proper adjudication of the issue. The warranty agreement applies to the hardware products and not to any other operative systems like windows, Unix etc. Laptop was repaired and informed the complainant to take back. The complainant refused to take back the same from the custody of the opposite party and demanded the return of the amount. The complainant brought the laptop number of times the operating system of windows got crashed to the custody of the opposite party, problem was due to corruption of the operating system and repair would not be cover under the warranty. The pirated operating system at any time could have caused problem to the laptop. The error of blue screen is a software problem and not hardware problem. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency of service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased laptop from the op on 16-6-2009 for Rs.40,345/-. The only defense taken by the op is that warranty covers only hardware not for software, to prove this fact there is nothing before the Fora by way of documentary proof or evidence. The op has not established satisfactorily that the warranty does not cover defects of software. The software was loaded by the op on delivery of laptop. When that is the case if the software loaded was pirated one for which op alone will be responsible. Op never disclosed to the complainant that laptop was loaded with pirated software. The windows collapsed frequently the laptop was given to service on 17-4-2010. Service report is produced, problem reported is “Operating System corrupted”. There after again the complainant faced problem with the working of laptop and he delivered the laptop to the op on 3-5-2010 for correction and the problem reported was “Blue Screen Error”. The complainant has produced service report dated 3-5-2010. The complainant is not satisfied with the product because the system is not working properly as per the commitment and obligation. The complainant had sent legal notice demanding the refund of the amount. The complainant is a lawyer by profession. He suffered inconvenience due to deficiency of service and defective nature of laptop. The complainant does not want to take back the laptop from the op because he has already purchased another laptop for his day to day work. The complainant prayed only for refund of the amount. There is nothing wrong or exaggeration in the demand made by the complainant. The op had taken contention that Lenova Company has not been made party to the present proceedings. The dealer is equally responsible along with the company. The dealer can not escape from his liability. The amount had been received by the dealer and a defective product had been sold to the complainant. The dealer will be at liberty to recover the amount from the company. The op is not only dealer is also a service center. Therefore, it is the duty and obligation of the op to refund the price amount of the product to the complainant. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The complainant here in being a consumer under the CP Act., his interest requires to be protected by ordering the op to refund the amount received for the laptop. As per the tax invoice the actual price of the laptop is Rs.29,178/-. Rs.1167/- is collected towards VAT. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the VAT. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.29,178/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 45 days the above amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realization. The op is directed to send the amount directly to the complainant by way of DD /Cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1st DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />