Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 357.
Instituted on : 06.09.2013.
Decided on : 24.07.2015.
Smt. Sulakshna w/o Sh.Vinod Khurana R/o H.No.799 Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Kamla Marketing 1306/28 Arjun Nagar Opp. Raj Takies Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- M/s Sony India Limited, A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-66006600.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vijay Rathi, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a laptop from M/s Digital compusystem Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon on 05.10.2011 vide invoice no.DCPL/11-12/3923 in lieu of Rs.46490/-. It is averred that since the very beginning the problem like hanging the Window-7 licensed software preloaded was started corrupting. The complainant made a request to the opposite party on their toll free number and he was told about the service centre at Rohtak i.e. opposite party no.1. It is averred that on 14.03.2012 the complainant took the above said laptop to the opposite party no.1 who kept the laptop for two-three days and return the same by saying that now it is correct but any job sheet was not supplied to him. It is averred that again the problem started on 21.05.2012 in Display back light , touch pad problems but this time also job sheet was not given to the complainant. Again the server of the laptop became down and again there was problems of touch button(mouse key) of left side, USB port etc. and this time after several requests only manual job sheet dated 29.09.2012 was provided to the complainant. It is averred that the official of the opposite party no.1 never cared towards the main problem of laptop which is corrupting of window time and again. In fact the said laptop was having manufacturing defect due to which it did not work properly from the very beginning. It is averred that on 14.09.2013 opposite party charged Rs.450/- on account of window corrupt problem and it was told to the complainant that to remove the defect of laptop the complainant will have to spend Rs.21000/- and later on it was asked to pay Rs.16000/- instead of Rs.21000/-It is averred that the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the laptop in question but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties amounts to gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the laptop in question with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.46490/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.11.2013 of this Forum. However, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the first complaint with regard to the alleged defect in the laptop has been made on 20.04.2013 and not prior to that and the compliant was regarding damaged USB and operating system problem. Since the laptop was not within the warranty, the service centre of the answering opposite party generated a service estimate and communicated the same to the complainant. The complainant did not approve the said estimate and therefore, the report of the alleged problems could not be rectified. It is averred that the complainant used the said laptop for a period of more than a year without any problem. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the laptop as alleged or otherwise. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party no.2 prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C1 the complainant had purchased one laptop from the Digital Compusystem Gurgaon, on dated 05.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.46490/-. As per the job Sheet Ex.C2 dated 29.09.2012 the defect was regarding click not working and as per job sheet Ex.C3 there was a complaint regarding touch pad, USB port not working and display only backlight etc. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the defects in the alleged laptop appeared from the very beginning of its purchase and the product was taken to the opposite party No.1 several times for repair and no job sheet was provided to the complainant. It is further contended that there is manufacturing defect in the alleged laptop which could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs and lateron was refused on the ground of ‘warranty expired’. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party no.2 is that there was no manufacturing defect in the product and the complainant contacted the opposite party after expiry of warranty period and the estimate of Rs.21000/- was provided to the complainant and as a goodwill gesture she was provided some discount and a new estimate of Rs.16498/- was generated but the complainant refused to repair the same..
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant the defect in the laptop appeared from the very beginning of its purchase and it was taken to the service centre of the opposite party firstly on 14.03.2012 and after that so many times but no job sheet was provided to her. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter and all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding the defect in the alleged laptop stands proved. It is also on record that the date of purchase of laptop is 05.10.2011 and as per the job sheet Ex.C2 the defect in the product appeared on 29.09.2012 i.e. within one year. Moreover as per the job sheets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 in the column of Warr/AMC/Non-Warr/others it is written as “2” which shows that there was a warranty of 2 years. It is also on record that the opposite party no.2 vide its reply and affidavit has submitted that there was warranty of 1 year from the time of its original purchase but as per warranty card “Annexure-R2” it is mentioned in the terms and conditions that: “Sony India Pvt. Ltd.(hereafter, “Sony”) warrantees the product to be free from manufacturing defects during the period indicated in the section- ‘valid upto’ on product information page. But the product information page ‘Annexure-R2’ is blank and no other document has been placed on record by the opposite party to prove that the warranty was upto one year of purchase i.e. 04.10.2012. Hence as per the job sheets Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 it is proved that the warranty was for two years and the product could not be repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Regarding the manufacturing defect in the product we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect”, as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Mumbai has held that: “Manufacturing defect-Expert evidence-Principal of res ipsa loquitur-Failure of compressor of the AC within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amount to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied and it is further held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”, as per 2013(2)CLT387 titled as M/S ICC Computer System Vs. Gagan Bharat & Others Hon’ble Himachal Pardesh State Commission, Shimla has held that: “Manufacturing defect(laptop)-complainant purchased a laptop of H.P.Pavilion-during warranty period defect of overheating developed-Despite of repair in authorized service centre laptop could not be repaired to the satisfaction of complainant-Complaint allowed-Directed to replace the defective laptop with cost”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant is entitled for refund of price of alleged laptop from the opposite party no.2/manufacrurer.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is directed that the opposite party no. 2 shall refund the price of laptop i.e. Rs.46490/-(Rupees forty six thousand four hundred ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.09.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the laptop in question to the opposite party. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.