IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 24th day of June, 2014
Filed on 12.01.2012
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.6/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sampath.S. 1. Softech Infosys, Near Bishop
Lekha Cottage Jerome Nagar, Chinnakkada
Karthikappally P.O. Kollam – 691 001
Alappuzha – 690 516
(By Adv. M. Sunilkumar) 2. HCL Infosys Ltd., Represented
by its Service Manager Venkitsubru
3319/63 Manaparambil
Thondayil Road, Panampally Nagar
Cochin – 682 036
(By Adv. T.S. Suresh)
3.Toshiba India (P) Ltd.
Represented by its business
Development Executive Rajesh
Ravi, P.C. Division 35/291
Peraparambil, Mangalam
Cochin – 682 025
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 30.1.2008 complainant visited the first opposite party for purchasing a Laptop of his personal purpose. The Sales Manager makes to believe the complainant that Toshiba TS L 40-A511D Model Laptop’s configuration is fit for his requirement. So the complainant made a purchase order to the first opposite party for purchasing the same and first opposite party offers the complainant to make home delivery of the same within two days. Thereafter on 1.2.2008 one sales executive of the 1st opposite party visited the house of the complainant at Kathikappally and delivered the laptop along with an additional 1 GB memory card of DDR 2 version and collected Rs.34,500/- by issuing an invoice issued by the 1st opposite party for the same amount. At that time the executive makes software installation and demonstration of the laptop. After some months of purchase the Laptop became dead. So the complainant registered a complaint with the third opposite party through their toll free number and as directed by the 3rd opposite party, complainant entrusted the laptop with the 2nd opposite party for repairing it. They repaired the laptop by replacing mother board and returned it to the complainant. The product had one year warranty offered by the manufacturer. Before the expiry of that on 23.1.2009 the complainant extended the warranty for a further period of 2 years by paying Rs.6,180/- to the 2nd opposite party. Meanwhile the laptop again shows problems such as key loosing and shut down problem. So the complainant again entrusted the laptop with the 2nd opposite party for repair. But they are not ready to repair the laptop as the problem cannot be solved by them. According to them on previous time while replacing mother board a lock is mistakenly open and they solved that problem by adjusting some keys. So further repair of the laptop is not possible. The first problem to the laptop was due to the manufacturing defect and the subsequent problems is due to the unskilled service done by the 2nd opposite party. The laptop is still in the hands of the 2nd opposite party. It is with them for more than 20 months. So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filled claiming the following reliefs:-
- To realize the cost of the laptop amounted to Rs.34,500/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase till realization.
- To realize Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the humiliation and mental agony caused to the complainant.
- To realize the cost of proceedings from opposite parties and their assets.
- Such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper for the disposal of disposal this complaint.
2. Notice issued to the opposite parties 1 and 3 were served, but they remained absent, hence opposite parties 1 and 3 were set exparte. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The allegation that on previous occasion of repair while replacing mother board a lock is mistakenly open and they solved the problem by adjusting some other keys, is not correct hence denied. There is absolutely no chance for opening the lock by mistake as alleged. But on the other hand the lock is a plastic part and there is chance for broke. But in the present case lock is not broken. Further the allegation to the effect that the service done by the 2nds opposite party unskilled is not correct and hence denied. The first repair and replacement of the mother board by the 2nd opposite party is perfect and it is done by qualified and skilled technician of the service centre of the company. When the complainant entrusted the Laptop 2nd time for repair after examination of the Laptop, it is found that the mother board has complaints and the opposite party informed the complainant about the complaints of the mother board and also informed that the only option his replace the mother board. But the complainant was not interested to replace the mother board saying that since it is a manufacturing defect, he wants replacement of the Laptop. There is deficiency of service alleged by the complainant.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Ext.A1 is the original bill issued by the 2nd opposite party, Ext.A2 is the 2 year warranty extension, Ext.A3 is the true copy of the letter dated 4.9.2010 issued to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant, Ext.A4 is the postal receipt of the same letter, Ext.A5 is the another letter given to the 2nd opposite party dated 15.9.2010 by the complainant, Ext.A6 is the postal receipt of the same letter, Ext.A7 is the job sheet given by the 2nd opposite party at the time of entrusting the Laptop for repair, Ext.A8 is the email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 19.8.2010 and Ext.A9 is the reply email given by the 2nd opposite party. The Service Manager of the 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1. No documentary evidence from the part of the 2nd opposite party. As per the commission application filed by the complainant, an expert commissioner is appointed by the Forum and expert commissioner filed the commission report which is marked as Ext.C1.
3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the compensation and costs?
4. Points 1 and 2:- The complainant had purchased the laptop from the first opposite party on 1.2.2008 by remitting Rs.34,500/-. Ext.A1 evidenced the same. According to the complainant after some months of purchase within the warranty period, the laptop became dead and he entrusted the laptop to the 2nd opposite party as per the direction of the 3rd opposite party for repairing it. The 2nd opposite party admitted that they repaired the laptop by replacing the mother board. Thereafter the complainant before the expiry of the warranty period, extended the warranty period for a period of 2 years by paying Rs.6180/- to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2 evidenced the same. The laptop again shows problems and complainant entrusted the same to the 2nd opposite party. This was also admitted by the 2nd opposite party. But according to them after examining the laptop, it is found that the mother board is complained and the complainant is informed to replace the mother board. So it is clear that the 2nd opposite party is admitting the complaint of the mother board of the laptop. According to the 2nd opposite party since the complainant was not ready to replace the mother board, the complainant was asked to take back the laptop and the complainant has not turned to take back the same. But there is no documents produced to prove the same. The laptop is with the 2nd opposite party for more than 20 months and they are not ready to repair the laptop. Complainant filed this complaint before the Forum on 12.1.2012. Even after getting the notice, the 2nd opposite party failed to produced the laptop. Thereafter as per the direction of this Forum, the 2nd opposite party produced the laptop and it was examined by an expert commissioner. The expert commission report is marked as Ext.C1. As per Ext.C1 report, the laptop has some damages. But it is not clear from Ext.C1 that the disputed laptop has any manufacturing defect. The 2nd opposite party challenged the veracity of Ext.C1. But not taken any steps to controvert the evidence of the expert commissioner. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the laptop has some defects during the extended warranty period. Since proper service was not provided during the warranty period and the defects were not cured. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The disputed laptop was with the 2nd opposite party for a long time. Complainant entrusted the same within the warranty period itself. The 2nd opposite party has no case that the laptop has no warranty. Hence it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects whatever it may have. In the instant case, the opposite parties failed to repair the laptop which was in their custody for a long period of time. This squarely calls for compensation beyond doubt and argument. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to repair the laptop to the satisfaction of the complainant at free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of the Laptop amounted to Rs.34,500/- (Rupees thirty four thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to give Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of June, 2014.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sampath. S. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Original bill issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 - 2 year warranty extension
Ext.A3 - True copy of the letter dated 4.9.2010 issued to the 2nd opposite party by the
complainant
Ext.A4 - Postal receipt of the same letter
Ext.A5 - Another letter given to the 2nd opposite party dated 15.9.2010 by the complainant
Ext.A6 - Postal receipt of the same letter
Ext.A7 - Job sheet given by the 2nd opposite party at the time of entrusting the Laptop
for repair
Ext.A8 - Email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 19.8.2010
Ext.A9 - Reply email given by the 2nd opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Mukesh (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
