D.O.F:30/11/2020
D.O.O:20/02/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.160/2020
Dated this, the 20th day of February 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Babu K John,
S/o John Kurichiel,
Kurichiel House, : Complainant
Kundamkuzhy PO,
Kasaragod- 671 541
(Adv.T.C.Narayanan)
And
- Oxygen the Digital Shop,
107 A, 108 B/ VIII Kinattummootil Bldg,
MC Road, Nagampadam,
Kottayam- 686 006
(Advs. Saji Mathew, Denu Joseph, Bibin Babu & Shafi)
- Lenovo India Private Limited, : Opposite Parties
Ferns Icon, Level 2,
Outer Ring Road,
Dodenakund
Bengaluru- 560 037
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The Complaint is filed under section 35 of the consumer protection act.
The facts of the case in brief is as follows. The complainant purchased a laptop from the Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.38,000/- on 21.03.2020. The laptop was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2.The complainant purchased the laptop for the use of his daughter Ms.Chinju Babu, who is studying for M. Sc. degree course. Before purchasing the laptop the Opposite Party No.1 offered that the laptop supplied will be 2019 making, having one year warranty. But the laptop delivered to him was an old laptop made in 2013, installed with outdated software. The old outdated software led to all kind problems and stability issue. It was a poorly designed one, charging ports easily failed within normal usage. Another problem was heating issue. It had display issue and mother board hard disk problem. The laptop shut off right away on removing adaptor. The lap top delivered by Opposite Party was defective one and the Opposite Party is indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant submits that in spite of several request over e-mail and whats app, the opposite parties failed to cure the defects of the laptop. The complainant has suffered loss and hardship due to unfair trade practice and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant estimates a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- due to the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint is filed for the direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation and cost.
The notice sent to the Opposite Parties duly served and the Opposite Party No.1 entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed written version. Opposite Party No.2 remained absent and their name was called and set exparte.
As per the version filed by Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts. The Opposite Party admitted the purchase of the laptopon 21.03.2020 by Ms. Chinju Babu the daughter of the complainant. The lap top was given to Ms. Chinju Babu, which was examined by her at the time of purchase and based on satisfaction about the quality of the product, the laptop was purchased. There is no connection with the complainant with this transaction. The allegations that the laptop is 2013 make and installed with outdated software is absolutely false and hence denied. The allegation regarding the failure of charging ports etc. are false and hence denied.
The lap top is manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and any quality related to issues if at all true, are to be agitated with Opposite Party No.2 alone. The Opposite Party No.1 has no role regarding quality related issue, since they are only dealer. The Opposite Party No.1 submits that the complainant approached them with some allegations about the laptop and they gave necessary direction to register complaint with Opposite Party No.2 in November 2020. The Opposite Party No.1, considering the requirement of the complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.2 and based on the reply from Opposite Party No.2, had intimated the complainant that service can be provided on site, where the complainant lives, at the instants of Opposite Party No.2. But complainant has not availed any such option to get onsite service from the Opposite Party No. 2. Significantly the product is within the warranty period and in case of any manufacturing defect the product would cover the warranty benefits. There is no deficiency is service on the part of Opposite Parties. The complaint is having no merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext.A1 to A6 series are marked. He was cross examined as Pw1. Ext.A1 is tax invoice Dated 21.03.2020 issued by Opposite Party No.1, Ext.A2 and A3 are warranty cards issued by Opposite Parties, Ext.A4 is photograph of seal of the laptop, Ext.A5 series are copies of E-mail messages, Ext.A6 are copies of whatsapp messages.
Opposite Parties did not adduce any oral evidence nor marked any documents.
Based on the pleadings of rival parties the following issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that the laptop sold by the opposite party to him is defective. Instead of 2019 make laptop ordered, the opposite party delivered a 2013 make laptop installed with outdated software. The old outdated software led to all kind problems and stability issue. It was a poorly designed one charging ports easily failed within normal usage. There is problem of heating issue and display issue. Also there are mother board and hard disk problem. The laptop shut off right away on removing adaptor. The complainant submits that in spite of several request over e-mail and whats app, the opposite parties failed to cure the defects of the laptop. The complainant produced documents Ext.A1 to A6 series to prove his case.
The Opposite Party No.1 admitted the purchase of the lap top on 21.03.2020 by Ms. Chinju Babu, the daughter of the complainant. But they deny the contentions that the laptop is defective and it is 2013 make etc. The Opposite Party No.1 submits that considering the requirement of the complainant, they contacted the Opposite Party No.2 and based on the reply from Opposite Party No.2, had intimated the complainant that service can be provided on site, where the complainant lives, at the instants of Opposite Party No.2 . But complainant has not availed any such option to get onsite service from the Opposite Party No. 2. But the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to prove their case.
The opposite party No.1 has no case that they have provided proper service to the complainant after sale as per the warranty. The opposite Party No.1 further submits that the lap top is manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and any quality related to issues if at all true are to be agitated with Opposite Party No.2 alone. The Opposite Party No.1 has no role regarding quality related issue, since they are only dealer.
The documents Ext A5 and 6 series, which are the communication between the complainant and the Opposite party over e mail and whats app, would reveal that the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the defects of the laptop. It is stated that the laptop was not working properly from the last week of May 2020 and it was not cured till March 8, 2021 even though the complainant contacted with opposite Party No.1. The documents show that nothing was done by the opposite parties, except some bare offers to cure the defects.
The Document Ext.A1 is tax invoice dated 21.03.2020 issued by Opposite Party No.1 would show that the laptop was purchased on 21.03.2020.So it was in working condition for nearly 2 months till it became defective in the last week of May 2020.
Admittedly, the product became defective within the warranty period and in case of any manufacturing defect the product would cover the warranty benefits. But the complainant did not produce any reliable evidence to show that the defect of the laptop is manufacturing defect. There is no report of an expert regarding the defects of the laptop before this commission. There is no evidence to show that the lap top is of 2013 make as alleged by the complainant.
The complainant submits that the opposite Parties could not cure the defects of the laptop in spite of several request, he could not use the same for his intended purpose, for which it was purchased. Failure to render after sale service or denial of the service to the purchaser of the product amount to service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monetary loss.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the loss of the complainant.
The complainant prays to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation. But he did not produce reliable evidence to prove such a huge loss. The complainant purchased the laptop for Rs.38,000/-. No details of other expenses or loss is produced by the complainant. In this circumstance, this commission hold that a total amount of Rs.50,000/- would be a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation, to the complainant within 30 days. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the litigation cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Tax invoice dated 21/03/2020
A2: Warranty card
A3: Warranty Card
A4: Photograph of seal of the warranty cards
A5 series are copies of E-mail messages
A6: Copies of whatsapp messages
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Babu K John
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
