Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/398/2021

Renju J Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prime Digitronics service - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN            : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                                     SRI.VIJU.V.R                      : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.398/2021 (Filed on : 23/12/2021)

ORDER DATED : 29/08/2022

COMPLAINANT

Renju.J.Thomas,

S/o.Thomas Lalu Eapen,

Scientist / Engineer,

LPSC/ISRO, Valiyamala,

Thiruvananthapuram

Residing at ‘Park Lands’,

SRA 37, Nellimoodu Lane,

Mukkola, Kallayam.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695043

 

(By Adv.T.L.Sreeram & Adv.Anu Chandrakumar & Others)

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. M/s.Prime Digitronics Services Pvt Ltd,

Kairali Plaza, Karamana,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695002

Rep.by its Managing Director

 

2. Lenovo India Pvt Ltd,

Ferns Icon, 2 Outer Ring Road,

Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura,

Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560037

Rep.by its Managing Director

 

1.  

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN        : PRESIDENT

1.           This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.           The case of the complainant in short is that on 16/10/2020, the complainant purchased a laptop manufactured by the second opposite party with name as ‘Lenovo Ideapad’. The warranty offered by the second opposite party to its said product is one year from the date of purchase. While so, by the month of August, 2021, the complainant’s laptop developed severe problems including frequent black out of the display screen, difficulty in switching on etc. The complainant who is in much need of the said gadget, in his day to day personal life as well as official life, was exposed too much hardship and trouble as a result of the aforesaid problems surfaced in his laptop. On 04/09/2021, the complainant approached the first opposite party, who is the authorized service centre of the second opposite party in Thiruvananthapuram for repairing the said laptop and the first opposite party accepted the same against repair order form no.339 by assuring to rectify the defects at the earliest. On 14/09/2021, the first opposite party informed the complainant that the repairs were carried out and the laptop started to function properly. As such, the complainant went to the service centre on 14/09/2021 itself and collected the laptop. But, to the utter surprise of the complainant, when he tried to use the laptop on the same day, all the problems existed in the laptop started to resurface. The complainant at that point realized that the first opposite party has not carried out any repair so as to rectify the defects.  Therefore, left with no choice, the complainant again approached the first opposite party on 16/09/2021 with the defunct laptop and they took the same again for service against repair order form no.454. The personnel attached to the first opposite party have promised to cure the defects properly and to return the subject laptop at the earliest. But, contrary to the said promise, the first opposite party failed to contact and inform the complainant regarding the status of the repair as well as the expected date for delivery after completing repairs. As a result, the complainant tried to contact the service centre several times through various modes like telephone, messages etc, but all such attempts turned futile. So much so, the complainant directly went to the first opposite party service centre, but he was made to turn back with lame excuses by the first opposite party. A complaint was submitted to the second opposite party through e-mail, to which the complainant was assured by the opposite party that its team is working on priority pertaining to the subject laptop and requested complainant’s patience and co-operation. It is on 11/11/2021, the said reply was given to the complainant by the second opposite party. But, nothing turned up positively till date. The complainant being an engineer, without his laptop, was exposed to hardships which are almost incapable of being expressed in words. Further, being his personal laptop, the complainant has stored many valuable research documents as well as family photographs, in the said gadget.  It is further submitted that, to the utmost shock and agony, recently the complainant was provided with veiled comments by the first opposite party hinting the unbelievable fact that the subject laptop is lost, at the hands of the first opposite party. The same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of its highest grade and the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss sustained to the complainant along with exemplary compensation befitting the act of the opposite parties. In the aforesaid circumstances the complainant is left with no other alternative other than to approach this Hon’ble Commission to redress his grievance.  

 

3.   After admitting the complaint, this Commission issued notice to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties accepted the notice issued by this Commission, they failed to enter appearance before this Commission on the date fixed for appearance. Subsequently on 24/03/2022 the name of the opposite parties were called absent and declared exparte by this Commission. 

4.    The evidence in this case consists of PW1and Exts.P1 to P5 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party.

 

5.Points to be considered:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed
3. Order as to cost?

6.                 Heard. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Exts.P1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 16/10/2020 issued to the complainant evidencing the purchase of laptop. Ext.P2 is the copy of repair order form no.339 dated 04/09/2021 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party. Ext.P3 is the copy of repair order form no.454 dated 16/09/2021 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party. Ext.P4 is the copy of e-mail dated 10/11/2021 sent by the complainant to the second opposite party. Ext.P5 is the reply e-mail dated 11/11/2021 issued to the complainant by the second opposite party. Through Ext.P1 the complainant has established that he has purchased the laptop by paying Rs.31,990/-. Through Exts.P2 & P3 it is evident that the complainant has handed over the laptop to the first opposite party for repair. Ext.P4 e-mail letter dated 10/110/2021 shows that the laptop was initially handed over to the first opposite party on 04/09/2021 and subsequently on 16/09/2021 for repair works. Ext.P5 shows that the second opposite party also was aware of the grievances of the complainant. From the documents produced before this commission it is evident that the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties were within the warranty period. According to the complainant he being a scientist / engineer of ISRO, the laptop is very essential in his official as well as private purpose. The complainant submits that due to the irresponsible attitude from the side of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss which is to be compensated by the opposite parties. Another serious allegation raised by the complainant is that the opposite parties informed the complainant that the laptop of the complainant was lost from the custody of the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties accepted the notice issued from this commission, they failed to appear before this commission and defend the case hence both the parties were declared exparte. The opposite parties being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 to P5 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. From the evidence available before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We also find that due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss. As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                    In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay for Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.  

              A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 29^th day of August 2022.

•  

P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                          Sd/- 

                                                            VIJU.V.R         : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

be

APPENDIX

CC.NO.398/2021

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                 - Renju T Thomas

Exhibits for the complainant

Exts.P1                 Copy of tax invoice dated 16/10/2020 issued to the

                             complainant evidencing the purchase of laptop.

Ext.A2                  copy of repair order form no.339 dated 04/09/2021 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party.

Ext.A3                  copy of repair order form no.454 dated 16/09/2021 issued to the complainant by the first opposite party.

Ext.A4                  copy of e-mail dated 10/11/2021 sent by the complainant to the second opposite party.

Ext.A5                  reply e-mail dated 11/11/2021 issued to the complainant by the second opposite party.

List of witness for the opposite parties        - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite parties                 - NIL

Court Exhibits                                            - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                           PRESIDENT