BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.415/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 17^th March 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to rectify the defects found in the Laptop or to replace the same of similar model and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased a laptop from opposite party No.1, on payment of Rs.29,445/- on 29.01.2012.  The laptop carried a company warranty for one year from the date of its purchase.  The opposite party No.1 extended the warranty for another one year, on payment of Rs.1,343/- (i.e. from 29.01.2013 to 28.01.2014).  The laptop suffered with various defects within the warranty period and same deposited with opposite party service centre repeatedly.  The opposite parties fail to rectify the defects satisfactorily.  A legal notice caused on the opposite party No.1, calling upon to repair the laptop, but opposite party No.1 without complying the requests, gave an untenable reply.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the compliant, seeking reliefs. 
3.     The opposite party No.1 admits the sale of Laptop to the complainant and the company warranty and extended warranty for the same.  The opposite party No.1 submits it is only a retail seller of various products, of various companies.  For any defects found during the company warranty period, the company’s authorised service centre undertakes repair.  The additional warranty extended by opposite party No.1 is based on the genuinity of the products and the same under Reliance Resq Care Plan (RCP), which is subject to certain terms and conditions.  The recurrence of the trouble in the laptop was due to improper utilisation of the product, so under the warranty Reliance Resq Care Plan (RCP), the problem got rectified through authorised service centre on 16.06.2013 and on 17.07.2013 by incurring a sum of Rs.14,000/-.  Again, on 06.09.2013, when the product submitted with a complaint of malfunctioning, it was found that the laptop was tampered and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant, who refused to take back the laptop.  The notice issued by the complainant was replied narrating the entire facts on 24.09.2013.  As such, the opposite party No.1 submits, there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.
4.     The opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting the version of opposite party No.3.  The opposite party No.3 submit itself as the company, opposite party No.2 as its authorised service centre and opposite party No.1 as its authorised dealer.  It provides a limited warranty on its products, which is subject to the terms and conditions.  The laptop was submitted to opposite party No.2 on 10.09.2013.  Upon inspection, it was found that same was in open and tampered condition.  Hence, there is violation of warranty terms, as such an estimation for repair costing Rs.29,590/- was submitted to the complainant.  Further, the warranty has been extended by the opposite party No.1 not by opposite party No.3 and every time the laptop was submitted to authorised service centre by the Reliance Technician.  The laptop was serviced by unauthorised agencies.  As such, it is not liable to repair the laptop free of cost.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     The complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit and relied on documents.  The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 filed affidavit evidence.  Written arguments filed by opposite parties.  Heard the oral submissions of both side.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, in not rectifying the defects in the laptop or to replace the defective laptop by defect free product and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The laptop purchased by the complainant suffered with several problem repeatedly, within a short span from the date of its purchase.  The laptop was covered with one year company warranty as against any manufacturing defects.  The opposite party No.1, the retailer of opposite party No.3, extended warranty for a term of one year on receipt of Rs.1,343/- from the complainant.  The laptop was repeatedly submitted with the problems to the opposite party No.2, but the defects could not be resolved satisfactorily.  Subsequently, the opposite party No.3 noticed tampering of the laptop by unauthorised service personnel and to repair the same, the opposite party No.2 demanded for a sum of Rs.29,590/- which is more than the value of the laptop (i.e. Rs.29,446/-).
9.     The opposite party No.1 got rectified the defects through authorised service centre on 16.06.2013 and 17.07.2013, incurring a sum of Rs.14,000/- i.e. after the lapse of about one and a half year from the date of its purchase.  Since there was violation of warranty terms and conditions, the complainant was not entitled to get repair the laptop free of cost.  Further, the laptop was submitted to the opposite party No.2 by the Reliance Technician.  Hence, contended there is no deficiency in service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. Admittedly, the laptop purchased by the complainant, suffered problems repeatedly and the same could not be resolved satisfactorily by opposite parties.  After the lapse of company’s warranty period, the opposite party No.1 extended warranty for one year on payment of Rs.1,343/-.  The problem in the laptop could not be rectified even after incurring an expenditure of Rs.14,000/- by opposite party No.1.  Further to resolve the problem an estimation of Rs.29,590/- has been made, which is more than the original sale price of the laptop.  This clearly goes to show that the product became useless, within a span of one and a half year.  Demanding more than the value of the product (laptop) for undertaking repair work appears to be an unfair trade practice by opposite parties.  Therefore, we opine that the opposite parties are liable to repair the laptop on receipt of applicable charges for the spare parts only, on submission of the laptop to the opposite party No.2 within the stipulated period.  Further, since the laptop is in the custody of the opposite parties, the same is required to be returned to the complainant, by removing the defects.  The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, to the complainant.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally liable to repair the laptop, within 30 days of this order, with a notice to the complainant.
3. The complainant is bound to pay the cost of the spare parts that are replaced by the opposite parties in rectifying the defects in the laptop, within 7 days, on receipt of the notice from the opposite parties.
4.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.
5. In default to comply, the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant, until compliance.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 17^th March 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER