By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The petition was filed on 10-8-2006.Petition is filed under Sec.2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant purchased a Vaio bearing model No. VGN FS 15 GP and bearing serial No. 750232 from opposite party No.1 through opposite party-2 for a sum of Rs.97990/-. The system purchased by the complainant had a one year warranty. The complainant had purchased vaio on account of the brand value and the reputation of opposite party-1 in the market. When the complainant attempted to use the DVD player it was not functioning. Complainant had immediately lodged a complaint with the opposite party-2, who assured him to replace the vaio. But opposite party-2 failed to replace the vaio as promised to the complainant. When the complainant attempted using the CD combo drive there was a strange noise coming from the CD combo drive. Complainant had intimated opposite party-2 regarding the defects in the system. Even though the complainant contacted O.P.-2 and explained the defects in the DVD player and CD combo drive from the very day of purchase opposite paprty-2 did not attend the complaints and make it defect free. Complainant had also informed opposite party-1 vide E.mail explaining the defective CD combo drive and DVD player of the vaio. Complainant had followed up the matter for a period 4 months with the opposite parties-1 and 2, but his requests fell on deaf years. The Engineers and Technicians of O.P.1 had later on checked the vaio and was convinced about the complaints put forward by the complainant. As per the warranty terms if defects occurred within one year O.P.1 is liable to replace the vaio. The opposite party-1 failed and neglected to perform their part of the assurance. O.P.1 did not care to rectify the defects or replace with a fresh piece. Complainant has filed this petition for the financial loss and mental agony he had to undergone because of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties, seeking relief and compensation.
Opposite party-1 filed a version denying the entire allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the Laptop for commercial purpose. Opposite party-1 admits the purchase of the Laptop and the warranty for one year. Opposite party-1 had inspected thoroughly the Laptop and the complainant was convinced of the perfection of Laptop while purchasing it. It is not true to say that the Laptop became damaged immediately after purchase. O.P.-1 denies that the DVD player and CD combo drive had any defects alleged by the complainant. The allegations raised by the complainant are all baseless and misleading. O.P.1 denies the averment of the complainant that opposite party-2 had promised to replace the Laptop with a brand new one. Opposite paprty-1 submitted that they are prepared to rectify genuine defect if any free of cost within the warranty period. On receiving the complaint Mr. Santhosh Thomas of opposite party-1 had visited the complainant to inspect the working condition of the Laptop. On inspection of the Laptop in the presence of the complainant no problem was detected by Santhosh Thomas. The allegation of the complainant that the Engineers/Technicians of the opposite parties confirmed the fault of the Laptop after check up and found out defects in the system is denied by the opposite party. O.P.1 did not agree to replace the Laptop as it was functioning perfectly. O.P.1 denies all the allegations of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. O.P.1 prays to dismiss the petition.
Opposite party-2 submitted a version denying allegations and averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the CP Act. O>P.2 admits the purchase of the note book PC, vaio manufactured by O.P.1. Complainant was fully convinced and satisfied by the performance and efficiency of the product before the purchase. O>P.2 denies the averment that DVD player was not functioning and a complaint was lodged with O.P.2. O.P.2 denies the averments of the complainant is that O.P.2 had agreed the replacement of the produced. O.P.2 also denies that CD combo drive produced strange noise. The allegation in para-9 of the complaint that the complainant had telephonic conversation with Avinash.S. of the opposite party-2 and Mr. Avinash promised to replace the defective vaio is false As the note book has not effect all. The complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the petition. There was no negligence or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party-2. No loss injury or hardship has been caused to the complainant on account of opposite party-2. Hence O.P.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief. if so what is the relief?
No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Ext.A1 to A10 were marked on Complainant’s side. Ext.X1 also is marked. No documents produced by O.Ps.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a note book PC Laptop from the opposite party-2, the manufacturer of the vaio system was O.P.1. According to the complainant the DVD player and CD combo drive of the Laptop became faulty from the very day of purchase. The Sony vaio computer Laptop purchased by the complainant was for an amount of Rs.97990/-. Complainant had intimated the opposite parties both one and two several times regarding the defects in the DVD player and CD combo drive. The opposite parties did not respond for a long time. The complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite parties over phone and letters to make the system defect free. According to the complainant the Laptop was inspected by the Engineers and Technicians of opposite party-1 after a long time and an authorized person of opposite party Mr. Avinash had promised to replace the Laptop, because they were convinced of the genuiness of the complaint regarding the system. O.P.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed to these statements of the complainant. Complainant had submitted that one Mr. Santhosh Thomas had inspected the Laptop and was convinced of the fault pointed out by the complainant. Complainant has argued that there is an inspection report by Santhosh Thomas in which he has noted the defect and recommended for replacement of Laptop with a brand new one. Complainant had filed I.A. 205/09 seeking a direction from the Forum to produce the inspection report of Santhosh Thomas. The I.A. petition was allowed by the Forum. O.P.1 was directed to produce the inspection report of Santhosh Thomas on 9-10-2009 . But the opposite parties did not produce the said report even though O.P. prayed and sought time for several postings. If the report was produced the Forum could have made out whether there was any defects as alleged by the complainant. As the opposite party had sought time for producing the report, we have come to the conclusion that there was a report. But this report was never produced before the Forum. An Expert was appointed in this case and expert has filed a report which is marked as Ext.X1. In the X1 report the expert commission has stated that on inspection it was represented by the opposite parties that there was no service report made by Santhosh Thomas. Without the service report after the inspection the expert expressed his inability to correctly ascertain the nature of defect in the disputed Laptop during the year 2005. The expert had examined the Laptop which was in the possession of the complainant. Even though the expert was unable to pass a judgment as to what would have been the condition of the said Laptop in the year 2005 when the Laptop was purchased, at the present moment of inspection the DVD ROM Drive was in a non functional Stage. Even the expert had expressed his opinion for the production of the service report of Mr. Santhosh Thomas failing which the contention of O.P.1 will not stand.
The Forum has looked into the different aspects put forward in this case by both the opposite parties. Here is a case where a complainant has preferred a petition before the Forum stating that the Laptop purchased from the opposite party-2 which is manufactured by O.P.1 has become defective during the one year warranty period Ext.A2 produced by the complainant is the warranty and service conditions. Ext.A2 clearly says that upon discovery of a defect in materials workmanship or failure to meet the specifications in the product during one year period , Sonny Shal at Sonny”s sold discretion either repair such product or replace it with the identical type of product without charging any technical labour fee and repair parts. In our opinion Ext.A2 clearly says that if a product of O.P1 shows any defects they will replace or make defect fee free of cost. The complainant has argued that there is a report given by one Mr. Santhosh Thomas of O.P.1 who has inspected the Laptop and found it to be defective. Complainant had filed an I.A. petition for cause production of this report by the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to produce this report. If O.P. had produced the report they could have proved their contention that there was no defects in the Laptop purchased by the complainant. At the same time the complainant has taken out an expert commission for the opinion who has clearly stated that he cannot say about the condition of the Laptop during the year 2005 only the person who had inspected the system during that time can give the correct condition. When the expert commission had inspected during the year 2008 he had found that the DVD was not functioning. In our opinion when we take all these aspects into consideration it would be correct to say that the DVD player had become defective within the warranty period itself. O.P.1 has not fulfilled the warranty conditions. According to us O.P.1 was practicing in a deficient manner. We can also attribute unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party-1. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the petition.
In the result the petition is allowed O.P.1 is directed to replace the Sonny Vaio Laptop with a defect free new versionof the Laptop to the complainant. In our opinion the complainant is also entitled to get an amount of Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. Both O.P 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amountof Rs.5000/-and Rs.500/- each. The O.P.1 can take back the old Vaio system from the complainant after replacing with a fresh piece. O.Ps 1 and 2 are directed to comply the order within one month of receiving the copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of November 2010.
Date of filing:10.08.2006.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Copy of invoice No.C000307 dtd.17.06.05..
A2. Copy of Warranty dtd. 17.06.05
A3.Registered A.D. from complainant to opposite party dtd. 06.08.2005.
A4.Copy of e.mail from complainant to opposite party dtd.12.08.05.
A5. copy of e.mail from complainant to opposite party 2 dtd.19.08.05.
A6.Copy of E.mail from complainant to opposite party2 dtd.19.08.05.
A7. Copy of legal notice sent by complainant to Managing director dt.21.01.06.
A8. Copy of legal notice sent by complainant to opposite party-1 dtd.27.01.06.
A9. Copy of legal notice sent by complainant to opposite party 1 dtd. 27.01.06.
A10. Copy of legal notice sent by complainant to opposite party dtd.28.01.06.
X1.Commission report dtd. 16.06.08.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
