Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.
2. The case is briefly stated as follows: On 08.09.2013 the complainant purchased a Sony Note Book PC SF015212B (Laptop) from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.34,500/-. The said laptop started malfunctioning from August 2014 and on 10.10.2014 the complainant approached the opposite party and intimated the defect of the computer. The opposite party conducted the service of the said computer and demanded a service charge of Rs.8,500/- from the complainant. According to him, even though the warranty period was existing, the act of the opposite party by demanding the service charge is against the warranty conditions. The complainant contended that the act of the opposite party is illegal and clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. According to him, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant apart from the service charges stated above. The complainant filed the above said complaint before this Forum for realising the service charge of Rs.8,500/- and for a compensation etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint, and issue notice to the opposite party for his appearance. The opposite party entered appearance and filed his version as follows: According to him, the purchase of the said laptop is true. He contended that the allegation of malfunctioning of laptop from August 2014 was not correct. He stated that if the laptop was in a stage of malfunctioning, the complainant would have to produce it in August 2014 itself. The opposite party categorically stated that the warranty period was expired on 08.09.2014 because the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase i.e. 08.09.2013. He again contended that the warranty period was already expired hence the complainant is liable to pay the repairing charges, i.e. Rs.8,500/- to the opposite party. The opposite party repeatedly stated that the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase, the opposite party specifically informed the expiry of the warranty to the complainant and knowing this fact the complainant entrusted the laptop to the opposite party. On the basis of the above contention, the opposite party requested this Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to opposite party.
4. We peruse the complaint, version and record before us and framed the following issues for consideration.
- Whether the complainant entrusted the laptop for service within the warranty period?
- If so, regarding relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he himself examined as PW1. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. On the other hand, opposite party was examined as DW1 and he filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination but no documents were marked on his side. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice bill dated 08.09.2013 for Rs.34,500/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. Ext.A3 is the service bill dated 10.11.2014 for Rs.8,500/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant is more or less as per the tune of the complaint. According to him, he purchased the above said laptop for an amount of Rs.34,500/- from the opposite party. He deposed that the warranty for this laptop would be expired only on 2014 October. It is specifically deposed that on August 2014 onwards this laptop started malfunctioning and on that time itself the complainant informed this matter to the opposite party. The opposite party informed him to hand over the said laptop for necessary services. The opposite party serviced the said laptop and demanded Rs.8,500/- from PW1 as its service charge. According to the testimony of PW1, it shows that he entrusted the laptop to the opposite party within the warranty period and opposite party has no right to ask service charge from the complainant (PW1). In his proof affidavit, he again deposed that the laptop was suffering manufacturing defect that is why the mother board had been replaced. As far as the evidence of opposite party is concerned, when we peruse the proof affidavit of DW1 it reveals that he deposed more or less in the tune of his version. In his proof affidavit, he categorically deposed that the laptop was not entrusted him in the warranty period and no way he is liable to bear the service charge. According to his testimony, it is to see that the warranty is only for one year and it expired on 08.09.2014. When the learned counsel appearing for the complainant cross-examined him, he answered like this, “ഞാൻ വിറ്റ laptop ഗുണമേന്മ ഇല്ലാത്തതാണോ എന്ന് എനിക്ക് അറിയില്ല. ഗുണമേന്മ ഇല്ലാത്ത സാധനം വിറ്റത് unfair trade practice അല്ല. 08.09.2013 ലാണ് laptop വിറ്റത്. 2014 September മാസം വാദി laptop ൻറെ തകരാറുമായി എന്നെ സമീപിച്ചു എന്നത് ശരിയാണ്”. In the light of this answer, it is clear that the complainant approached the opposite party on September 2014 and informed the defect of his laptop to him. It is a cogent and convincing evidence in favour of the complainant to see that the opposite party cured the defect of the laptop within the warranty period. We do admit that the laptop was handed over to the opposite party after 08.09.2014. But complainant is eligible for an extended warranty as per the provisions of law. After the closure of complainant and opposite party’s evidence, we heard the complainant and the opposite party in detail.
6. Point Nos.1 & 2:- For a sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the only question to be considered is whether the goods in question is under warranty at the time of entrusting it for service. There is no dispute with regard to the date of purchase and the purchase amount of the laptop. It can be proved by Ext.A1. With regard to the warranty card, which is issued on 08.09.2013 has also not disputed and the warranty card is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the bill for an amount of Rs.8,500/- which was paid by PW1to the opposite party as the service charge of laptop. When we peruse the warranty card Ext.A2, it is clear that the warranty will exist one year from the date of purchase. But it is to see that on the bottom of the Ext.A2, it is printed that the warranty will extended “up to October 2014”. When we examined this Ext.A2, it also reveals that the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase. As we already discussed above and as per Ext.A1, the date of purchase is 08.09.2013. If so, no doubt the warranty would have to be expired on 08.09.2014. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that there is no value or merit for the printing, “October 2014” in Ext.A2 because it is printed by the manufacturer of the laptop and no benefit will goes to the complainant with regard to the above said printing. Anyway, we can safely come to a conclusion that the warranty date of this laptop will expired on 08.09.2014 as per Ext.A1. Moreover, in Ext.A2 also the duration of the warranty is clearly explained as, “one year from date of purchase”. It is come out evidence that the laptop handed over to the opposite party for maintenance only on 10.10.2014, i.e. clearly after the date of purchase. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that even though at the time of entrusting the laptop to the opposite party, the warranty period was over the complainant informed the defect or malfunctioning of the laptop to the opposite party within the warranty period, i.e. August 2014. According to him, the said fact is pleaded in the complaint Para 2, “the aforesaid laptop started malfunctioning from August 2014”. When the complainant was examined as PW1, he is specifically deposed in his affidavit Para 5 with regard to this fact. He deposed that, “Sn laptop 2014 August മാസം മുതൽ ശരിയായ നിലയിൽ പ്രവർത്തിക്കാതെയായി. ഞാൻ ആ വിവരം എതൃകക്ഷിയെ അറിയിച്ചു. എതൃകക്ഷി ടി laptop service ചെയ്യുന്നതിനായി നൽകാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. തുടർന്ന് ഞാൻ ടി laptop 10.10.2014-þൽ service ചെയ്തു ശരിയാക്കുന്നതിനായി എതൃകക്ഷിയെ ഏൽപ്പിച്ചു”. When the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party cross-examined PW1, he answered like this, “എൻറെ laptop 2014 August മാസം മുതൽ malfunctioning ആണെന്ന് ഞാൻ ഹർജിയിലും affidavit ലും പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് കളവല്ല”. 08.09.2013-þൽ നിങ്ങള് വാങ്ങിയ laptopþന് Ext.A2þൽ പറഞ്ഞ പ്രകാരം 08.09.2014-þൽ warranty തീർന്നു അല്ലേ? (Q) ശരിയല്ല. A). Witness adds, “എനിക്ക് ഒരു മാസം അധികം warranty opposite party തന്നിരുന്നു. Extended warranty opposite party തന്നു എന്നു ഞാൻ കളവു പറയുകയല്ല”.
7. When we peruse this portion of cross-examination of PW1, it is to see that PW1 believes that he has got an extended warranty even after the expiry of 1 year from the date of purchase i.e. 08.09.2014. We do admit that when we examine Ext.A2, it has not reveal any extended warranty as deposed by PW1. It is to see that the intimation of the defect of the functioning of laptop to the opposite party was sufficient to see that he has got an extended warranty from that date onwards. In order to settle this position the learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited a decision reported in, (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721 the dictum of the said decision is, “A Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss.21)(o) & (g) – “Deficiency in service” – Scope – EPABX telephone exchange – Contract for supply and maintenance of, warranting effective e and efficiency running of – Duty of appellant suppliers to ensure effective and efficient running of said system under contractual warranty and 1986 Act – Deficiencies in said system becoming manifest soon after installation – Duty of appellant suppliers to attend immediately thereto – Extension of contractual warranty period by conduct representation of appellants – Duty of appellant suppliers to continue to attend to said system during extended warranty period due to its continuing malfunctioning – Held, if appellant had been unable to attend to deficiencies and malfunctioning of system soon after installation, there would have been a “deficiency of service” - As deficiencies in the system continued to persist during warranty period, including the extended period, appellants were rightly held to be liable for deficiency in service by the State and National Commission”. It is clear from the above said decision that, if a person who is having a warranty informed the defect of the goods concerned to the manufacturer or dealer within the warranty period, the intention of the parties can be gathered and this representation should have been treated as a right of warranty for an extended period. In this case, it is clearly proved that the complainant informed the defect of his goods to the opposite party in August 2014, i.e. clearly within the warranty period. So he has all right to get a claim and protected under warranty period. Another important aspect also brought through this decision with regard to the compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court finds that the damages are equivalent to price of goods and it can be awarded in 1986 Act (C.P. Act). In the light of the above cited decision and the evidence adduced by the complainant with regard to the intimation of deficiency of his goods to the opposite party, we can safely come to a conclusion that the complainant (PW1) entrusted this laptop for service within the extended period of warranty. Hence it is clear that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and the complainant is proved his case beyond doubt. Hence Point No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, we pass the following orders:
- Opposite party is directed to return the service charge of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Five hundred only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% from the date of receipt of this order till its realisation.
- Opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order till its realisation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2016.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Saleem. A
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of retail invoice bill dated 08.09.2013 for Rs.34,500/-
issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Warranty card.
A3 : Service bill dated 10.11.2014 for Rs.8,500/- issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : V. Kalyana Sundaram
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Salim. A, Dildaar, Kadackadu South, Pandalam.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Manager, QRS Retail Ltd., 21/786-2, Azhoor Road,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
