JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that op no.1is the manufacturer of different electronics goods including all types of computers like laptop, desktop etc. and op no.2 is the registered distributor cum selling agent of the op no.1whereas the op no.3 is the authorized service centre of the op no.1.

          Complainant being engaged in professional job needed of a computer and so he made up mind to purchase a Sony Laptop after being satisfied about the system and his service etc. and visited the showroom of the op no.2 and purchased a computer from op no.2 for smooth running of his professional job and at that time complainant disclosed his activity also. 

Practically he purchased a Sony Laptop SVE 15118FNWIN5 Model and that was practically selected by op no.2 as it was latest model in the market and complainant was convinced and purchased the same with all hope that he shall have not to face any further problem in his professional job.  On payment of Rs.56,100/-  complainant purchased it along with certain items as per tax invoice being No.GCPL/701091/12-13 dated 29.09.2012 and the Laptop was delivered along with other articles and complainant began to use it for his professional job.  But on 01.05.2013 when he was working and using the laptop suddenly he noticed disorder in the said laptop and as an Advocate and layman in electronic matter did not try to find out the fault out of his own.

But on the very next day he contacted the service centre of the op no.1 i.e. the op no.3 as per advice of op no2 and informed them about the sudden disorder in his laptop and after getting the laptop in their custody, the op no.3 informed him that LCD Monitor is broken and hearing the same complainant was astonished and told them that the same could not be happened because he used with all due care and even it was informed by the complainant that he did not carry the laptop outside any time and such a question of breaking LCD Monitor by the hands of complainant does not arise as alleged by the op no.3 at the time of meeting with op no.3.

The complainant asked the op no.3 to do the needful for smooth running of the said laptop and then the op no.3 told him that the sum of Rs.10,624/- was required towards cost of such monitor including service charge and as to why complainant shall be liable to pay such amount to op no.3 when such incident was taken place within the warranty period.  In response to that, op no.3 informed the complainant that there was no breakage warranty and having heard the same, complainant practically was astonished and complainant tried to convince op no.3 by the documents received by him at the time of purchase of such laptop what do not say so and complainant requested the op no.3 to make the laptop status quo ante and op no.3 took the said laptop in its custody.

Thereafter complainant was with hope that the laptop will be received after proper replacement and repairing, but nothing had been done by the op no.3, thereafter complainant reported the matter to all the ops stating that he is facing much inconvenience in his professional job seriously but they did nothing.  But op no.2 told the complainant that they were trying their level best either to repair the LCD Monitor or to replace the same by a new one.

Thereafter complainant was waiting for getting a result but on 02.05.2013 complainant received one estimate by which the op no.3 demanded a sum of Rs.10,502/- and thereafter complainant lodged a complaint with the op no.1 on 04.05.2013 narrating the entire incident and requested op no.1 either for repairing or for replacing the LCD Monitor by placing new one without any cost and said letter was duly received by the op no.1.

Against that letter dated 04.05.2013, the op no.1 intimated the complainant that upon physical inspection of the product by their engineers, the LCD Panel of the set was found to be damaged due to external cause and it was further informed that broken LCD Panel was not covered under warranty and some photographs of the broken LCD Panel were attached to the email with intimation dated 13.05.2013 and he was requested to deposit the said estimate of Rs.10,600/- to make the said LCD Panel in normal condition.

Further complainant received intimation through email on 17.05.2013 by which op no.1 informed that to use Logged No.14142745 for any future reference.  Having no other alternative complainant sent legal notice and praying for repairing or for replacing of the laptop or refund of the amount but op did not respondthough they received it and in the above circumstances, for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for adopting unfair trade practice complainant compelled to file this case for redressal.

Fact remains in this case notices were served upon the all ops by registered post with A/D card but it is found all the ops received the notices of the complaint and they received it by signing and it was received by them on 16.11.2013 and after that and further from the postal Internet result sheet it is found that Sony Pvt. Ltd. received the notice of this complaint on 16.11.2013, Galaxy Computech Pvt. Ltd. had received on 16.11.2013 and another op no.3 Service Centre received it on 16.11.2013.  So, it is clear that all ops received the summons in respect of the complaint and it was duly served upon them.  But practically they did not turn up though this Forum waited for another 2 months from the date of the service of the notice.  Then it was fixed for exparte hearing finally on 14.11.2013 on which day one Ld. Lawyer claiming himself as lawyer of the op submitted orally that he is advised by the ops to appear and pray for time and that lawyer practically did not file any power and did not file any prayer but that lawyer was asked to file such application etc. praying for time and this Forum waited up to 04:30 PM but thereafter it was found that the said lawyer did not file any power on behalf of the ops not even filed any petition of time with such prayer that power shall be filed on the next date and in fact the lawyer left the Forum’s room at 03:45 PM without taking any step and in the above circumstances the case was closed finally after hearing argument of the complainant.

Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the complainant and also considering the Tax Invoice it is found that complainant purchased the said laptop of Sony Laptop SVE 15118FNWIN5 Model at a cost of Rs.52,787/- along with Sony Laptop Carry Case, Cleaning Kit, SVB Mouse Optical USB Black, PNY RAM 2GB – DDR3-1333 and Sony Pendrive 8 GB Mini-GW and total he paid Rs.56,100/-.  Fact remains complainant is a practicing lawyer of Kolkata High Court and he purchased the laptop for his professional work in his chamber and truth is that disorder in the said laptop was detected on 01.05.2013.  So, on the next day the complainant reported the matter to the service centre.  But fact remains service centre after inspection found that LCD Panel of the set is damaged due to external cause and for which op no.3 asked the complainant to deposit of Rs.10,600/- for change of the same as it is not within warranty clause.

But in this regard we have gathered from the said Tax Invoice that all warranty is provided by the manufacturer as per their standard warranty terms.  But it is equally true that it is noted that warrany will be void on physical damaged breakage electronic failure burnt out tampering of warranty sale serial number of goods and op no.3 has tried to inform the complainant that as it was physically damaged, so it was not covered by warranty.

In this regard we the President and Members jointly verified the entire laptop physically.  There is no scratch anywhere and if actually it was damaged due to external/physical force invariably there must be some scratch, crack or other marks.  But that is completely absent and even an innocent/idiot person can also say that there is no physical force from outside or there is any damage.  Ultimately it is quite okay, physically from outside and fact remains even the screen is very fair without any scratch but LCD Monitor is practically kept inside the screen.  Then it is fact that LCD Monitor may be damagedunless and until the screen is not damagedScreen of laptop is quite okay and there is no scratch, no sing of violence.  Then how op no.3 submitted that on physical inspection it was detected that damage was caused for external cause, such sort of finding on the part of the op no.3 or op nos. 1 or 2 are completely baseless.  Another factor is that it has become a practice of the manufacturer of laptop, desktop etc. not to give warranty properly to the customer and fact remains that those articles were purchased by an Advocate of Kolkata High Court and he purchased for his professional job and even an idiot shall find it even after scrutinizing the said laptop from all sides in this Forum.

Then how such an observation was made by the op no.3, then it is clear that it is their business to sell the laptop not to give relief as per warranty and fact remains as per warranty clause laptop was also covered by the warranty card.  But anyhow the op no.3 tried to prove that it was damaged due to external physical reasons.  But we have failed to understand how the service centre came to such a finding.

But in this regard we have gone through certain systems of laptop and presence of the LCD Monitor beneath the screen if screen is not affected or damaged then question of damage of LCD does not arise and sometime LCD may be damaged due to certain defect of the manufacturer of the laptop and in the present case that happened.

But only to avoid the their manufacturing defect they adopted such unfair trade practice and in this regard all ops have theirconnivance with each other to keep the prestige and dignity of the Sony Company and for which none gave any relief to the complainant and no doubt complainant as an Advocate of Kolkata High Court has been harassed by the ops and they did not try to satisfy the complainant as consumer who paid good money of Rs.56,100/- for the said laptop with accessories and anyhow ops have their every right to contest but none appeared.  They got notices of this complaint which is evident from the A/D cards and thereafter this Forum waited for 2 months and on the last day on 16.01.2014 on behalf of the ops one lawyer came and submitted that they shall have to file the written version to this Forum and time was given up to 04:40 PM but that lawyer also did not turn up after leaving this Forum at 03:45 PM on that dayand no application even was filed praying for written version along with filing general power on behalf of the ops it indicates that ops are very sure that they did some unfair trade practice with the complainant.

But they have their no courage to contest the case and ultimately they did not turn up to defy the allegation.  So, we are confirmed that within warranty period as per warranty ops did not act and such sort of act is no doubt unfair trade practice in all respect.  Another factor is that for the sake of the argument if it is accepted that due to external physical force the LCD was broken then apparently on the screen there must be scratch mark, crack mark or on the top of the both sides external violence work of the laptop must be seen.  But no scratch mark, is detected so it is no doubt the manufacturer’s fault for which the LCD was found broken and practically that was broken on 01.05.2013 whereas the said laptop was purchased by the complainant from Galaxy Computech Pvt. Ltd. on 29.09.2012.

So considering all the above facts we are convinced to hold that practically ops supplied a defective Sony Laptop and it is also proved that they are liable to change parts during warranty period and no doubt present act on the part of the ops are unfair trade practice and fact remains complainant as an Advocate of Kolkata High Court has been harassed by the ops continuously and he was not entertained by the op if complainant does not pay Rs.10,600/- as claimed by the op no.3. such sort of conduct of the ops cannot be tolerated by any authority whatever they may be.  But as per warranty it is their duty and of the manufacturer and the seller equally to entertain and to remove the defects as it would be found when apparently no one has his capacity to say that the very outside force has broken the LCD because out screen is quite okay and the entire laptop is as new as before and no one can believe the set has been used.

So, maintenance of the laptop by the complainant was always very good which is evident even if it is produced any higher authority and for which ops did not contest this case because they have their nothing to say and they are sure that Forum shall have judicial conscience and minds and they are not blind.  But nowadays it is found that many laptop manufacturing companies are appearing before this Forum and trying to convince that the defect as it is found after purchase is stated by the manufacturer or seller that it was due to man handle but in so many cases we have failed to understand the ops explanation of defects and some defects are not repaired by the ops when complainant wrote letters when op is found silent.

In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that there is sufficient reasonable and good cause to allow this complaint for adopting unfair trade practice by the ops and also for harassing the complainant without any reason and also for not giving proper relief within warranty period and in the circumstances the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the ops with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by each op to the complainant.

Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed jointly and severally to replace the laptop by a new one or to return the sum of Rs.56,100/- to the complainant and also for causing mental pain and agony and sufferings op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

For adopting unfair trade practice by the ops each op shall have to pay Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages and this punitive damages is imposed considering their adopting unfair trade practice and for deceiving the bona fide consumer in such a fashion and to protect the future intended buyers from the hands of these ops.

Ops are directed to comply this order as per spirit of the order within one month from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay op nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall have to pay penal interest @ Rs.250/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and till full implementation of the decree.

If it is found even after that ops are reluctant to comply the order in that case for disobeyance of the Forum’s order penal proceeding shall be started against them for which further penalty of Rs.10,000/- each shall be imposed against them as per provision of Section of C.P. Act 1986.