PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012
Filed on : 21/10/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 580/2011
Between
Shyson P. Manguzha, : Complainant
Manguzha house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Perumballoor P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. Regional Area Manager, : Opposite parties
Lenova India Ltd., 2nd floor, (party-in-person)
Kuppu Arcade,
Venkida Narayana road,
T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
2. M/s. Online-IT Shoppe, (2nd OPby Deepu Thankan,
Online IT Towers, Metroplaza, Market road,
Ravipuram road, Kochin-14)
Valanjambalam, Kochi-16.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
Shortly stated the case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Lenova Laptop from the 2nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 25,900/- on 03-12-2010. The complainant being an advocate, laptop is necessary for his daily work. While so the laptop went out of order in June 2011. Though the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties several times, no action was taken by them to rectify the defect of the laptop. The laptop supplied to the complainant has some inherent manufacturing defect and hence it became defective within a short period and thus he could not use the same. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of te laptop of Rs. 25,900/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization. He is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the loss of laptop facility. This complaint hence.
2. The defense of the 1st opposite party is as under
The complainant has not disclosed the nature of defects of the lap top in the complaint. The 1st opposite party duly collected the details of the lap top of the complainant from their authorized service centre. They have received the computer only on 20-08-2011 which relates to non-functioning of the port issue and the issue was diagnosed as planner (mother board) to be replaced. But the complainant refused to take the service under working and demanded replacement of the same. The demand of the complainant after using the lap top for more than eight and a half months is unjustified and unwarranted. There is no manufacturing defect to the product manufactured by the 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows.
It is true that the complainant purchased a Lenova Laptop from the 1st opposite party. During the warranty period the complainant directly approached the 1st opposite party for rectifying the complaint in the laptop. The 2nd opposite party only came to know of the alleged complaint when they received the summons from the Forum. As the 1st opposite party is a manufacturer herein it is for the complainant to approach through the 2nd opposite party to the manufacturer. This very clearly reveals that it is not a complaint were the 2nd opposite party was informed. The 2nd opposite party is ready to do the needful to the complainant. There is no substance in the averment contained in the complaint. Therefore, the contention of the complainant is not sustainable even with regard to the compensation demanded and denied hereunder. There is no merit in any of the contentions urged in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by the complaint. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard both sides.
5. The only question that comes up for consideration is neither the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the lap top from the opposite parties with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
6. Ext. A1 retail invoice goes to show that the complainant had purchased a lap top from the 2nd opposite party on 03-12-2010 at a price of Rs. 25,900/- . Ext. A2 service report dated 20-08-2011 would show that the product was within the warranty period provided by the 1st opposite party the manufacturer E-mail dated 06-08-2011 which is part of Ext. A3 series goes to show that at the request of the complainant to replace the gadget the 1st opposite party demanded the complainant to forward the invoice and service report for further process of the request of the complainant to replace the same. Though the complainant forwarded the said details called for nothing is forthcoming on the part of the 1st opposite party to show that they have duly processed the claim of a consumer in this case the complainant and redressed the same, the above conduct of the 1st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part since.
7. The 1st opposite party vehemently contended on the following points.
i. The complainant failed to prove the warranty of the lap top.
ii. There is no expert evidence to prove the alleged defect of the lap top
iii. The complainant failed to prove the damages if any sustained by him.
iv. Complainant has not mounted the box to prove his contentions.
In support of his contentions they relied on the following decisions rendered by the higher Judiciary.
a. Shanker Shah Ishar Das Jewellers Vs. Fedders LLyod
Corporation Ltd. 2004-CPJ -1-156 (NC)
b. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Another
(2009) CJ 1073 (N.C)
c. Praveen Balwada V. State Bank of India Mumbai & Ors AIR
2008 (NOC) 1734 (NC)
d. Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale Vs. Scooter India Ltd. 2006-CPJ-2-
143(NC)
e. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Vs. Rati Ram 2006-CPJ-3-7(NC)
f. Pawan Motors Vs. Jamna Sharma 2004-CPJ-3-517(NC)
g. Keshab Ram Mahato Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.
2003- CPJ-1-244 (NC)
h. Anupriya Sethi Vs. CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2003-CPJ-3-
385 (NC)
i. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2010-
CPC-1-1Supreme Court
j. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. V. Ajay Kumar 2008 KHC
4538 Supreme Court
k. Yashpal V. SSG Pharma Ltd., AIR 2007 (DOC) 283
8. The 1st opposite party stated in their version that the complainant approached the service centre on 20-08-2011 which was within the warranty period. Moreover in Ext. A2 the service centre went to state unequivocally that the product is within the warranty period. Since the 1st opposite party themselves admitted the warranty the non production of the same will not be fatal to the complainant’s case.
9. Admittedly no expert opinion is on record to substantiate manufacturing defect of the lap top. The suggestion of the 1st opposite party for replacement of the major component of the lap top coupled with the deficiency in service as found above uncontrovertedly goes to substantiate the claim of the complainant to get the lap top replaced. The non-execution of the complainant in this Forum is not at all sustainable, since the maxim “res ipso loquitur” speaks enough. Facts being sustained as above we need not go further into the citations mentioned for reasons we do not for-close or substantiate averments since. In the above circumstances this forum is of the firm view that the complainant’s lap top suffers from manufacturing defects and the opposite parties are liable to replace the same with a new one according to the choice of the complainant provided he pays the excess price if any than that of Ext. A1.
10. Since the complainant failed to prove the damages sustained by him we are to refrain from awarding any damages or costs of the proceedings to the complainant. It is the cause of the 1st opposite party that the complainant has failed to prove the damages caused to him due to his inability which would have substantiated his cause in his profession. For reasons uncontroverted on this issue we feel that the contentions of the 1st opposite party holds water.
11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the laptop of the complainant with a new one according to the choice of the complainant provided he pays the excess price if any than that of Ext. A1. The complainant is directed to return the disputed lap top to the opposite parties simultaneously.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of retail invoice dt. 03-12-2010
A2 : Copy of service report form
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 06-09-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
