Date of filing : 10-03-2010 Date of order : 30-10-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 56/2010 Dated this, the 30th day of October 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Vinodini, W/o.Subraya.K, Adukam House, Po.Rajapuram, } Complainant Hosdurg Taluk. (Adv. Sunny George, Hosdurg) Proprietor, Phoenix Info Systems, } Opposite party 1/1173, Mass complex, Kottachery, Po.Kanhangad. 671315. (Adv.T.M.Jose, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Bereft unnecessaries the case of complainant Vinodini, the Assistant Manager of VFPCK is that the Laptop Compaq Presario CQ40-145 computer she purchased from opposite party for `46,650/- on 12-12-2008 developed some complaints within its warranty period of one year. She entrusted it for service with opposite party on 31-10-2009. At the time of entrustment it was told that computer will be returned within 2 weeks. But it was not returned within the stipulated time as assured. On 20-12-2009 on the request of opposite party, complainant visited their shop and it was found that the screen of the computer was showing big patches. The laptop could not be used due the defecton the screen. Opposite party agreed to rectify the mistakes immediately. But no steps were taken by opposite party either to rectify the mistake or replace the laptop computer. The complainant now unable to use the laptop for her daily use. Opposite party is not ready to replace the laptop or rectify its mistake. Hence the complainant. 2. According to opposite party the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the manufacturer is not made a party. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer. It is specifically stated in the warranty that only an authorized Compaq service provider is able to effectively perform the service. M/s Maha Electronics Pvt Limited is the authorized service provider of opposite party who serviced the laptop. Hence they are also a necessary party to the proceedings. The opposite party has not given or provided or assured any warranty to the complainant regarding quality and working condition of the laptop. The opposite party has given only the warranty coverage undertaken by the manufacturer of the laptop. The opposite party is not expected to do any servicing to the laptop or the replacement of its parts or it’s labour warranty. The complainant has given warranty documents and technical documents as per that the manufacturer is offering warranty. The complainant has entrusted the laptop only on 18-11-2009 for service and not on31-10-09. Opposite party on receipt of laptop sent the same to the service provider at their cost though they are not under any obligation to do so. The warranty specifically states that the purchaser must sent or carry the product at his own cost or risk to the authorized service provider. The opposite party received the laptop on 18-12-2009 from the authorized service provider by courier in a local carry bag without any packing. On checking it is found that the screen was showing big patches and the same was brought to the notice of service center and enquired about the repair but the reply was that they cannot repair it. So an e-mail sent on 6-1-2010 to which a reply received as per that it was informed that since the updated patches on the LCD is a physical damage it cannot be covered under the warranty. The service center further informed opposite party that they received the laptop in damaged condition. Thus opposite party has done everything possible to redress the grievance of the complaint though he is not bound and responsible to do it. The opposite party is unable to replace or repair the laptop. The laptop is a complicated electronic device. It need sophisticated technic and knowledge to rectify the mistake or do service. The opposite party being a small reseller can only follow the conditions imposed by the manufacturer and the service provider. The complaint against opposite party is not maintainable. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of her claim. Exts A1 & A2 marked. Complainant cross-examined. Opposite party filed affidavit in support of his case and Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. The main contention of opposite party is that the warranty is provided by the manufacturer and the manufacturer their service center are necessary parties to the proceedings. According to opposite party the warranty document states that “ Compaq Presario product is covered by a one year warranty including replacement parts and labour for repair in the country in which it was brought and is available to all the laptops purchased as new direct from Compaq or from a Compaq retailer reseller or dealer” 5. To the above contention complainant in her affidavit stated that opposite party has not handed over any other documents to her except the invoice dated 12-12-2008 and actually the warranty mentioned in it is offered by the opposite party and not the manufacturer. Ext.A1 cash invoice dt.12-12-2008 issued by the opposite party shows that what is stated by the complainant is true since in the said invoice it is the opposite party who has offered one year warranty to the laptop and not the manufacturer. Had the alleged warranty documents issued by manufactured were given to the complainant then opposite party ought not to have issued the warranty additionally and unnecessarily by himself. 6 The further contention of opposite party is that he received the laptop from the service provider in a local carry bag and thereafter on it’s working the big patches are seen on the screen making the computer useless. According to him as per the e-mail reply from the service provider they received the laptop in a damaged condition. Now the fact remains is that the laptop computer became unfit for use due to the deficiency either on the part of opposite party or on the part of service provider for which the complainant is no way responsible and she is entitled for the compensation on account of the said loss. 7. The proprietor of opposite party Shri. Arun during cross examination as DW1 has admitted that Ext.A1 is issued by them that contains warranty and that when the laptop was entrusted by the complainant they did not note any patches on the screen. He further stated that the patches on the screen is developed during transit either from them to the service center for vice versa. 8. So from the above it is manifest that opposite party himself has issued the warranty stepping in to the shoe of the manufacturer and therefore he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by her on account of the deficiency in service. 9. The contention of opposite party that manufacturer is a necessary party to the complaint is no more tenable. Manufacturer of the computer is selling their products through so many retail outlets like opposite party. The manufacturer gives profit by whatever name it is called to the reseller or retailer. Similarity the retailer or reseller receives profit from the customer. So as far as the sale is concerned there is some obligation and privity between manufacturer and reseller. If the manufacturer selling their products through resellers then Resellers are the front man on the face of the manufacturer for the sale/marketing of their manufactured products. Hence the dealer can not escape simply showing for the customer to the manufacturer without taking the responsibility or liability to redress the grievance of the customer. Ofcourse the dealer can claim the loss sustained to him from the manufacturer on account of recompensing the customer. But they shall not be allowed to shuttle the customer from one point to another for the redressal of their grievance by shifting their liability. 10. Recently the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Pioneer Motors, Kannur (Pvt) Ltd V N.Chandra Winspot Tailors & Another reported in 2010 CTJ 344 (CP)(SCDRC) has been held that Dealers are usually absolved from liability in cases where manufacturing defects are alleged by the purchaser. This is not a correct approach. The dealers are as much responsible for the sale of the products as their manufacturers. 11. We can imagine the pinch suffered by the complainant on account of the damages sustained to her computer for no fault of her. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K. Gupta reported in III (2003) CPJI (SC) has held that the FORA constituted under the Consumer protection Act is empowered to award compensation to the consumer for the injustice suffered by him and the compensation in legal sense constitutes actual loss or expected loss or may extend to physical mental or even emotional suffering insult, injury or loss. 12. We are of the view that in this case the complainant has suffered for no fault of her and hence she is entitled for the compensation claimed. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of `20,000/- to the complainant together with a cost of `3,000/-. Complainant is at liberty to repair the laptop according to her on volition. Had the opposite party got a case that the amount is to be paid by the manufacturer and/or the service provider then he can recover the said amount from them by taking appropriate legal proceedings. Time for compliance of this order is limited to one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite party shall further liable to pay interest @ 9% for `20,000/- from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts A1.12-12-2008 Photocopy of invoice. A2.31-10-09 receipt issued by opposite party. B1 to B4 .E-mail messages PW1. Vinodini.A. DW1. Arun.M. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | , | | 
