Order No. 28 dt. 14/09/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a laptop from o.p. no.3 and immediately after the said purchase the complainant noticed that it was not functioning properly. The complainant thereafter made contact with o.p. no.2, but no effective step was taken. Thereafter the complainant sent lawyer’s notice to o.ps. praying for refund of the amount, but no reply was given. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.38,249.83 along with interest.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.1 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.1.
The o.p. nos.2 and 3 contested this case by filing w/vs and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. no.2 stated that o.p. no.1 is an independent company and o.p. no.2 never acted as an agent of o.p. no.1. It was stated that the complainant alleged that the laptop in question had the manufacturing defect and the dealer has not been made a party in this case, as such, the case is to be dismissed in limini for non joinder of necessary party. The o.p. no.2 being the service centre was approached by the complainant with the problem that the laptop was not functioning. After examination by the service engineer of o.p. no.2 it was found that non removable spot on LCD and system board required to be replaced. The o.p. no.2 sought for approval for replacement of system board from the manufacturer and replaced the system board since the laptop was well within the warranty period and revamped the laptop in good condition. The o.p. immediately communicated to the complainant to collect the laptop from the service centre, but in spite of repeated reminders the complainant failed to collect the laptop, on the other hand, the complainant filed this case claiming that the laptop had any manufacturing defect without any prove or cause. The allegation made by the complainant has got no substance and therefore o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In their w/v o.p. no.3 stated that he had no role to play in repsct of the manufacturing defect of the said laptop, therefore the case filed by the complainant does not lie against o.p. no.3 and as such, o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had purchased the laptop manufactured by o.p. no.1?
- Whether the laptop had the defect during the warranty period and whether the same was placed before the service centre?
- Whether the laptop was repaired and the complainant was informed to receive the same?
- Whether the claim made by the complainant can be entertained?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one laptop manufactured by o.p. no.1 at a price of Rs.38,249.83. During the warranty period the laptop had some problems for which the complainant claimed that the laptop had manufacturing defect and thereby the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount along with other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that so far as the manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant is concerned that cannot be the liability of o.p. no.2 being the service centre for making good of the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant after finding some defects in the said laptop whenever visited the o.p. no.2 the service engineer of o.p. no.2 on examination found that non removable spot on LCD and system board required to be replaced. The o.p. no.2 sought for approval for replacement of system board from the manufacturer and replaced the system board since the laptop was well within the warranty period and revamped the laptop in good condition. The o.p. immediately communicated to the complainant to collect the laptop from the service centre, but the complainant did not turn up and subsequently filed this case by making false allegation against the o.ps. praying for reliefs.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the laptop manufactured by o.p. no.1 from o.p. no.3. It is also an admitted fact that the said laptop had the technical problems within the warranty period. The complainant accordingly visited the o.p. no.2 being the service centre of the manufacturer, o.p. no.1. It is also found from the materials on record that the service centre after recording the complaint alleged by the complainant and the complaint number was recorded being no.4682633113 and found non removable spot on LCD and system board required to be replaced. The o.p. no.2 sought for approval for replacement of system board from the manufacturer and replaced the system board since the laptop was well within the warranty period and revamped the laptop in good condition. The o.p. immediately communicated to the complainant to collect the laptop from the service centre, but the complainant did not turn up to receive the same. It is admitted fact that in every article purchased by customer / consumer the manufacturer generally provides warranty and if anything happens within the warranty period it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to remove the defect and to deliver the article in good condition. Here in this case, the complainant found some defects in the said laptop purchased by her and she accordingly went to the service centre approved by the manufacturer. The service centre, o.p. no.2 examined the said laptop and the service engineer noted that the laptop had non removable spot on LCD and system board required to be replaced. The o.p. no.2 sought for approval for replacement of system board from the manufacturer and replaced the system board since the laptop was well within the warranty period and revamped the laptop in good condition. The o.p. immediately communicated to the complainant to collect the laptop from the service centre after necessary changes but the complainant refused to accept the same and did not contact the o.p. no.2. In view of such perspective of the case we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and o.p. no.3 being the seller of the product cannot be held liable for any defect in the said product itself. Thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.561/2012 is dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed on contest against the o.p. nos.2 and 3 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
