Date of Filing: 29-08-2018
Date of Order: 17-02-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM. (PGD (ADR), MEMBER
ON THIS THE MONDAY THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2020
C.C.No.366/2017
Between
M.Sridhar Dayal,
D/o. M.Venkat Rao, Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Business,
Flat No.41058, Janapriya Utopia Complex,
Attapur, Pillar No.143,
Hyderabad – 500 048 ……..Complainant
And
- Reliance Digital Retail Ltd.,
Rep.by itgs Proprietor,
Plot No.1,2,3,4, H.No.8-2-684/2/A,
Opp: ICICI Bank, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034.
- Acer India Pvt.Ltd.,
(Head Office/ Regd. Office/Corporate office,
Embassy Heights, 6th Floor, No.13,Magrath Road,
Next to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore – 500 025
- Regeneresis India Pvt.Ltd.,
Occ: Customer Support Manager,
Regeneresis India Pvt.Ltd.,
(Head Office/ Regd. Office/Corporate office,
Mayfair Building Shop No.4,1-8-303/34/1,
S.P.Road, Secunderabad – 500 003. ……..Opposite parties
Counsel for the complainants : Mr.Venkanna Podichedu
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Vamaraju Sri Krishnudu
Counsel for the opposite Party No.2 : Mr.M.Yadagiri
Counsel for the opposite Party No.3 : Absent
O R D E R
(By. Smt. CH. Lakshmi Prasanna,B.Sc. LLM (PGD ( ADR)., Member on behalf of
Bench)
- The above complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 against the opposite parties for deficiency of service, seeking this Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the laptop and compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant from the date of 9/7/2016 when the complainant purchased the laptop till the date of realization.
- Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased a Samsung laptop Model S1001 on 9/7/2016 paying an amount of Rs.18,884.03/- ( Invoice Ex A1 ) from Opposite Party No.1 and manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. Apparently, the laptop developed problems ( not charging etc.) continuously and was given to repair to Opposite Party No.3 on 2/8/2016, 21/4/2017,and again on 26/5/2017 i.e. all within a period of one year from the date of purchase of the laptop.( customer-call-cum-service report Ex A 2, A 3 & A 4). As per the exhibits Ex A2, A3 and A4, the mother board was replaced twice and the adapter was replaced by the Opposite Party No.3, and still the complainant continues to have problems with the laptop even after the said repairs. Aggrieved with the non-response of the Opposite Parties to his e-mails, the present petition is filed seeking appropriate relief.
- In spite of receipt of notice of the complaint, O.P.No.3 remained absent and no representation through out the proceedings and hence set exparte against Opposite Party No.3. In his written version the Opposite Party No.1 denied any liability for the product, being a retail seller and contended that he can neither be held liable for any manufacturing defect nor for after-sale services. Denying the allegations, the Opposite Party No.2, contended that there is no deficiency of services on their part as they have diligently attended to the complainant's complaints and provided required repairs and replacements.
- In the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments in the complaint supporting his claim with 8 documents including the Customer Call-cum-Service Reports and the e-mail correspondence with the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties filed their counter affidavit along with supporting documents exhibits B1 & B2.
- Based on the facts and material brought on record, and written arguments submitted by both the parties, the following points have emerged or consideration:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in the complaint?
- To what relief?
- Point No.1:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant’s laptop developed problems within less than a month of the purchase from Opposite Party No.1 and continues to have frequent problems even after repairs and replacements of the mother board and the adapter as per the customer-call-cum-service reports Ex A 2, A 3 & A 4. The complainant's case is that unless there is an inherent defects in the laptop in question, the problem would not have occurred frequently from the very date of its purchase and which could not be rectified despite initial replacements of the mother board twice which is apparently the back bone of the laptop and it being found defective and requiring replacement proves beyond doubt that the subject laptop was having manufacturing defect from the date of purchase, not to ignore the fact that the power button of the device was not working and the touch pad cursor unstable ( as evident from Ex B2 dt.26/5/2017) rendering the device dysfunctional as averred by the complainant and which has gone unrebutted by the Opposite Parties, while they claim to have provided necessary repair services whenever required by the complainant. Clearly, the entire material placed on record by complainant and Opposite Parties show that major replacements like the mother board in the laptop also did not render it defect free. In a similar complaint, the Hon'ble National Commission in M.G. Electronics Vs Sham Nandlal Sharma & Anr. II (2018) CPJ 239 (NC) held that "....the subject laptop sold by the OP was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which despite repeated repairs could not be rectified even after replacement of its motherboard and for selling such a premium laptop which was poorly manufactured, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency for service and unfair trade practice for having failed to either replace the same or refund the price to the complainant."
In the instant case, deficiency of service is writ large in the conduct of all the three Opposite Parties in the sale and after-sale services, and hence this point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.
- Point No.2 & 3:- Considering the repeated visits of the complainant to the service center for his laptop repair from almost a month of its purchase and incurring extra expenditure for recurring problem despite replacement of the mother board, it leads to the irresistible conclusion that the laptop had some hardware and functional problems from the beginning which is beyond repair and hence could not be rectified and made defect-free for the complainant, and hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant for causing inconvenience, mental agony, physical discomfort, unnecessary loss of time and unforeseen expenditure.
In view of the above findings, this Forum is of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed.
8) The opposite parties are hereby directed as under:-
(i) To immediately refund an amount of Rs.18,884.03 along with interest @12% p.a to the complainant towards the cost of the defective laptop in question and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount mentioned above except costs shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the 17th day of February, 2020.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Tnvoice dated 9.7.2016
Ex.A2 to A4 - Service report
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – Tax Invoice
Ex.B2 - Service report.
MEMBER MEMBER RESIDENT
