ORDER
Per V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
Briefly stating the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one Laptop Acer Model No. LAP-ACE-47362 SL. No. LXP54020030053E4681601 manufactured by OP4 company from the showroom of OP1 vide cash memo number 301150514 for Rs 26500. This laptop started giving problems and abruptly stopped working on 14.3.2012. This was immediately reported to OP3,the service centre of OP4 company, on 15/3/2012. But it was returned by the service centre, being out of warranty ,without any repairs on 22/3/2012. The complainant madea complaint to OP1 dealer and OP2 which is head office of OP1 but to no result. Hence the complaint.
OP1 and OP2 did not contest the complainant and wereproceeded with ex-parte. OP4 manufacturer has contested this case.
Case of OP4 is that the complaint is motivated, frivolous , baseless and is an abuse of process of law. In its written statement, OP4 has not contested the facts stated in the complaint regarding purchase and reporting of the matter about the defects and that the laptop was returned without repairs being out of warranty. In para 2 of the written statement it has been stated that as per the warranty terms the complainant is required to register the product with OP4 within 15 days from the date of purchase which the complainant had failed to do. Further in para 3 of the written statement OP4 has stated that
Page No. 2 Order CC164/12
the terms of service policy laid down under the warranty service table is as under:-
- 12 months limited warranty from the date of installation Or
- 13 months from the date of delivery or
- 15 months from the date of manufacture or whichever is earlier.
It is stated that the laptop in question was manufactured in the year 2010 and was sold by OP1 in 2012 i.e. beyond 15 months from the date of manufacture. It is further stated that OP3 had rightly refused to accept the product for warranty services. OP4 has annexed warranty service table dated 21.11.2012 as annexure 3. OP4 has also stated that the alleged defect is not a manufacturing defect under any circumstances.
Complainant in the replication has reiterated the facts of the complaint. In the evidence the complainant has filed his own affidavit. OP4 has filed affidavit of Mr. ParveenBisht Manager Customer Support. In their affidavits both the parties have supported their version stated in the complaint and written statement respectively.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
To substantiate its defence, OP4, themanufacturer was required to bring on record documents in order to prove as to on which date the laptop was delivered to OP1 (dealer). This would have shown that the Laptop was delivered for sale before the expiry of the aforesaid period of 15 months
Page No. 3 Order CC164/12
from the date of manufacture. Secondly such a warranty service table filed by OP4 (annexure 3)is dated 21-11-2012 and as such knowledge of the alleged policy cannot be presumedto the complainant. Further OP4 (manufacturer) has failed to disclose as to what action it had taken against OP1( dealer)on having knowledge of sale of the laptop in question after expiry of 15 months from the date of manufacture. OP4 was under an obligation to disclose date and month of manufacture of the Laptop in question , which ithas failed to bring on record. To build and establish a defence , a party is bound to support the same from the relevant record and facts. OP4 has failed to file on record any such document showing details of the day, month , year of manufacturer of the particular laptop. All these facts clearly make outthat thedefence built by OP4 is only an afterthought. Lastly such a plea by manufacturer is not tenable under the Consumer Protection Act which has been enacted forthe benefit of the Consumers. Hence, OP4 cannot deny its liability by taking recourse to the warranty clause. The plea of the OP4 (manufacture) that there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop also does not hold any water.The laptop had developed faults within a period of three months of its use. It was delivered back to the complainant by the service center without affecting any repairs. It appears to us that the Laptop has some inherenet defects which is why it did not work after a few months.
Page No. 4 Order CC164/12
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:
”what is the use of such goods or article if it looses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase and the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling sub-standard or defective goods”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal BrarVs. Asian Motors, FA 71/06 decided on 28.9.2007 the Hon’ble State Commission held:
“the disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and the manufactures to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, can not be ruled out and in that case parties will relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation”.
OP1 / OP2 are also deficient in also rendering service to the complainant. The Laptop was sold to the complainant by OP1/ OP2 vide invoice dated 10.1.2012. The invoice does not give any date of manfucturing of the Laptop nor gives the terms/ conditions of the warranty under which it had been sold away. It appears to us that OP1/ OP2 had
Page No. 5 Order CC164/12
misrepresented facts to the complainant and had sold away an old laptop as a new one.
In the light of the above facts/ discussion we are of the considered opinion that all the Ops are jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act. So we allow the complaint and order OP1, OP2 , OP3 and OP4 jointly and severally as under:
1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs26,500/- being the cost of the laptop along with interest @ 10% p.a.from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 9.7.2012 till payment.
2.Payto the complainant a sum of Rs5000/- as compensation for pain and agony which will also include the cost of litigation.
3. The Ops shall take back the laptop in question after payment from the residence of the complainant.
The OPs shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OPs fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
