Dated this the 27^th  day of July 2013

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

Premakumar.M.P

S/o.Prabhakaran Kartha,

Pothengil Kovilakam (H),

Post Nellaya,

Palakkad – 679 335                                       -                  Complainant

(Party in Person)

V/s

1.Sandip

 Technical Support Manager,

 Technical Department,

 MSI Computer India Ltd.,

 D-128/129, 1^st floor, Okhla Phase -1,

 New Delhi – 110 020

 

2.Prasanth,

 37/2038, a4 & A5, Mangalath Buliding,

 Muttathil Line,

 Near SBI, Subash Chandraboss Road,

 Kadavanthra, Cochin – 682 020

 Ernakulam

 

3.Sangeeth,

 Kanck Care, 1^st Floor,

 TKB Centre,

 ByPass Road,

 Shoranur

 Kerala – 679 121                        -                Opposite parties

(Party in Person)

          By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed CC/14/2012 before the Forum. After that the company representative attended on 28/04/2012 and signed a mutual agreement. As per the agreement the company have taken back the defective Laptop and replaced it with another one with six months extended warranty. After 4 months, the laptop again shows some problem. At this time the scrolling towards top to bottom has stopped working. So the complainant returned the laptop on 3/9/12 to the dealer as the warranty is upto 24/10/12. As such the Manager of Kanck Care called the MSI company representative and informed about the complaint which is due to the keyboard of the laptop. But according to the company the laptop will not come under warranty hence it could not be repaired / replaced. The company informed that if it is to be repaired it will be done on paid basis only which costs Rs.2400/-. After that the complainant has tried to find out the warranty through online but failed to find the same. So he called the company representative Mr.Krishnadas and informed him that the warranty has been extended as per the agreement made as per court direction. But he informed that the warranty was only for 3 months and it became expired as on that date. After getting the copy of agreement the complainant communicated him to the agreement points and informed that the warranty was for six months. But the company has not ready to rectify the problem. So the complainant could not able to use the laptop for last six months and cheated by the representative of company by convincing the wrong information about warranty. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the company to replace the present laptop (model “CR-620”)  with Core i7 model and pay Rs.25,000/- towards loss and damages.

1^st and 2^nd opposite party was absent and hence set exparte. 3^rd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. 3^rd opposite party is admitted the allegations of complainant and stated that he tried to solve the problem. Further stated that since it is a hardware problem he had no connection with the complaint.

Complainant and 3^rd opposite party filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

We perused relevant documents on record. According to the complainant as per the agreement in CC/14/2012 the company representative had taken back the defective laptop and replaced it with another one with six months extended warranty. As per Ext.A2 the copy of agreement dated 28/04/2012 shown that replaced the laptop with another one and six months warranty given to laptop. The complainant stated that after four months the laptop again shows some problem and informed the company representative about the complaint. According to the company representative the lap top will not come under warranty hence it could not be repaired / replaced. Also he demanded that if it is to be repaired it will be done on paid basis only, which costs Rs.2400/-. The complainant has not taken steps to prove the defects of laptop. The complainant stated that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has set exparte and not produced documentary evidence to show that they had given laptop to the complainant without defects. The complainant has not produced documentary evidence to show that the replaced laptop shows some problem after 4 months. But 3^rd opposite party has not raised objection to the allegations of the complainant that he has returned the laptop on 3/9/2012 to the dealer. The agreement in CC/14/2012 executed on 28/4/2012. So the defects of the laptop shown on 3/09/2012, comes within the warranty period as per the Ext.A2 agreement. After filing the first complaint the company representative replaced the laptop with another to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has not used the second laptop within the warranty period.

On the available evidence it is true that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had not repaired / replaced the laptop of complainant after 4 months. The 3^rd opposite party stated that after 4 months the laptop again showed keyboard malfunctioning problem and the complainant had brought the laptop to the office within the extended warranty period.

It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant had purchased the laptop with the help of 3^rd opposite party on 13/1/2010 for an amount of Rs.33,500/- The 3^rd opposite party stated that he has called the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to inform about the defects of laptop during the warranty period and they did not respond positively. But 3^rd opposite party has not produced documentary evidence to prove that he informed them to the defects of laptop. As per Ext.A2 the complaint of the laptop was settled before the Forum. But the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had not complied the terms of agreement. It is gross deficiency in service. Moreover 1^st and 2^nd opposite party was not present. It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed.

We order the following:

1.    1^st and 2^nd opposite party jointly and severally liable to replace the laptop with another new laptop model CR-620 with core i7 model within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant shall entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation.

2.    Opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only)  as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings.     

        Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant shall entitled to get 9% interest for whole amount from the date of order, till realization

 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th  day of July 2013.    

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

 

 

Ext.A1 –  Copy of CDRF order in CC/14/2012

Ext.A2 –  Copy of settlement request submitted the complainant before the

 

 Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party

Nil

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings