KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 884/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 10.11.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 412/14 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                    : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

M/s .Dell India Pvt. Ltd., Diyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challangatta Village, Varthur, Hobli,  Bangalore South- 560071.

                           (By Adv. Nithya S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. P.V.Joseph, Puthuparambil House, Kayoor P.O, Anthinadu, Kottayam-686 651.

(By Adv. K.A. Asharaf )

2. Quilon Radio Service represented by its Manager, 34/32/1838-B, N.H. Byepass, Anjumana, Padivattom, Ernakulam.
3. Quilon Radio Service represented by its Manager, Kottayam- 686001.
4. T.V.S. Service Centre represented by its Manager, Near KSRTC, Kottayam- 686001.

JUDGMENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER

The appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the first opposite party in CC No. 412/2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (District  Forum / Commission for short) against the order  dated 30.09.2015.

            2. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 32,000/- with 9% interest from 25-08-2014, till realization of the amount, and on compliance of the order opposite party has the liberty to take back the defective laptop.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

            3. The complaint pertains to the damage to a laptop purchased from the second opposite party, which was manufactured by the appellant/ first opposite party, for Rs. 32,000/- on 25-08-2014. The Complainant also paid Rs 250/- for installing windows version as per the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party. The laptop was purchased for the benefit of Complainant’s daughter who was a post graduate student. It is alleged that soon after purchase, the laptop started giving troubles. It was not properly functioning from day one onwards.  The camera of the laptop was not working on the date of purchase itself and after some actions taken as per telephonic advice it started functioning. Again after three weeks it ceased to work. The touch bar was not working properly. The Complainant / first respondent   registered a complaint No-901136551 with Dell Service centre.  Despite constant follow up, the respondents failed to rectify the defects of the laptop. According to the complainant the laptop is of inferior quality and the defect occurred due to the manufacturing defect.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming              Rs. 32,250/- with 12% interest and a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

4.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version.   Notice was served on the fourth opposite party who did not appear.  The first opposite party contended that the damage occurred because the complainant installed pirated version of Windows 8 and the same was done without their knowledge.  The defects were rectified by the second opposite party.  So there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.    The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed version stating that they were only dealers of the company’s products and the service was provided by the authorised service centre of the manufacturer.   The complainant did not co-operate for solving the issue of laptop.  They are not liable to pay any compensation for defects in service.  Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exbts. A1 to  A6 on his side.  On the basis of the evidence adduced the District commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the first opposite party have filed this appeal.

            6.  Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the laptop developed problems as the complainant had installed pirated version of windows. It was done without their knowledge. They have done whatever was possible to solve the issues.   If at all there was a delay in attending the issue, it was because of non cooperation of the complainant. There was no major problem warranting replacement of the laptop or refund of the price. They argued that there was no report by an expert commissioner to prove the defects of the laptop. There was no deficiency on their part and hence prayed for allowing the appeal.

7.  The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he purchased the laptop believing the brand name of the appellant and the high quality expected from their product. It was purchased for the use of his daughter who was studying for post graduation.  It was of no use to her because of the frequent troubles and adversely affected her studies. There were series of e mail communications and telephonic talks with representatives of the appellant. She had to spend lot of time and energy to follow up the matter. But practically there was no solution and the laptop remained as not working. There was no positive response to their legal notice as well. The District Commission rightly found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint. Hence Respondent prayed for confirming the order of the District commission with costs. Other respondents did not appear before this commission.

8.  We have considered the submissions and perused the records. The opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted sale of laptop to the complainant / first respondent.  They also admitted that there was some problem with the lap top and it was reported to them.  The only issue in the dispute is regarding the cause of damage to the laptop.  According to the appellant it happened only because of the installation of a pirated version of windows in the laptop. We make it clear that we do not favour using cracked version of operating systems. In this case the respondent has produced the bill (Ext No. A2) which proves that it was done on payment. The appellants are unable to prove their contention that such installation was done at the instance of the complainant and that it can be the reason for development of the issues raised by the complainant. Another point raised by them is that defects of the laptop are not proved by a report of an expert commissioner. However such an objection was not raised by them before the District Commission. They could not produce any warning given to the consumer against the use and effects of pirated software at the time of sale.

9.  We can understand the effect of frequent troubles of a brand-new laptop, purchased for a specific purpose. When a recently sold laptop, possibly during warranty period, was not working properly the manufacturer and the dealer who sold it should have been alert and quick in action. Timely action from the customer support team would have solved the issue. This is a classic example of bad experience of a buyer of a brand new laptop. There was practically no ultimate solution for the issues raised and hence the very purpose of buying it was defeated. 2^nd opposite party / 2^nd respondent is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party who installed the windows. The buyer would be eager to get his lap top worked as soon as he buys it. It should be in working condition with essential programs required by the buyer. Dealer could have ensured it without violating any law in force.  Dealer could have added necessary charges also along with the cost of the laptop.  This is case where the buyer has no option, but to believe the dealer who supplied the laptop and installed the windows.  A consumer buys a product from the manufacturer or from his dealer trusting the quality of the product. They are liable if it is of poor or unacceptable quality. Needless to add that manufacturer of a laptop is liable if it do not come upto the standard required. Non-fulfilment of the standards required amounts to deficiency in service.

10.  In view of what is stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the District Commission that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the complaint.  As there is no valid ground, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the order in C.C. No. 412/2014 dated 30-09-2015 of the District Commission, Kottayam is confirmed.    There is no order as to costs.  

In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 30.09.2015 in CC.No:412/2014 of CDRF, Kottayam is confirmed.  The sum of Rs. 20,000/-deposited by the appellant on filing the appeal shall be released to the first respondent/complainant on proper application before this Commission. The  balance amount due as ordered by the District Commission shall be paid by the  appellants within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the respondent can initiate appropriate proceedings for executing the order. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                               T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                          RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb