Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 16.10.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To refund the price of the Laptop Rs. 32,759.06/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine only ) with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as Compensation for mental torture, financial loss, harassment and deficiency in service.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant purchased a HCL Laptop for his daughter Ankita Kumari on 10.05.2006 and the warranty period given was upto 10.06.2007 from SUNRISE COMPUTER named above which is situated at Gopalganj. The Laptop receipt bearing no. 4 date shows 01.03.2006 and amount mentioned Rs. 32,759.06/- including VAT while the installation of Laptop is 10.05.2006.
2. After purchase the said Laptop started creating trouble in Ram and battery and for the said trouble the Laptop was given to the sunrise service centre of sunrise computer for repair on 04.04.2007.
3. The Laptop was not repaired within time as assured and the same was delivered after lapse of six months eleven days i.e. on 15.10.2007 which caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
4. During the said period the complainant has been harassed upto more than six months and as such the complainant has sustained heavy financial and mental torture and harassment amounting to deficiency in service.
5. The said HCL Laptop total cash was Rs. 32,759.06/- only and the complainant has paid the entire amount in cash on the date of purchase.
6. The Sunrise computer has issued warranty card or certificate which bears the machine serial no. 2064 AX 028686 and the machine bears model no. 5903 Cel M 370 and invoice no. 154.
7. After repair on 15.10.2007 defects still persists as the screen of the laptop is not clear and the key pad is also creating much trouble and there are so many scratches on the Laptop and its cover which was lowered and reduced the value of Laptop and as such the laptop has been defaced and roughly handled by mechanic of service centre of Sunrise Computer which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. The Opposite Party no. 4 in his written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. At the outset it is submitted that the complaint as filed and framed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law being false, frivolous, based on false and fabricated grounds and without any merit.
2. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the system on 01.03.2006 as per the copy of invoice filed by the complainant. Complainant has filed the warranty card by themselves and mentioned the date of installation of the Laptop i.e. 10.06.2006 which is totally wrong. It is further submitted that the period of warranty is clearly mentioned in the Para – 1 (a) of the warranty card “ Subject to the terms contained herein, HCL shall on best efforts basis provide only corrective maintenance service and replacement of defective parts of the product for 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of delivery of invoice ”. The complainant has not only suppressed and concealed material facts from this forum but has also twisted and distorted the same as above in the complaint for its own convenience and to mislead the forum. The complainant is not, therefore, entitled to any relief from this forum and the complaint merits no fate other than outright dismissal.
3. The complainant has filed the present complaint after the expiry of the warranty period. It is submitted that the complainant as per invoice has purchased the laptop on 01.03.2006 and the warranty was valid for one year from the date of purchase. The system worked perfectly well for the period more than one year from the date of purchase as no complaints was ever received by the answering respondent, hence there is no deficiency in goods or service hence the present complaint to be rejected on this ground alone.
4. The sale of the Laptop was strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the opposite party, being the manufacturer. However the complainant has claimed a relief which violates the said terms and conditions and any violation of explicit and expressed warranty terms is not permissible under the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the reported matter of Maruti Udyog Vrs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Another, cited as I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an order for any relief outside the terms and conditions of the manufacturers warranty cannot be sustained. In the case in hand as per the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the opposite part herein; no replacement and / or refund is permissible under the aegis of the said warranty. The warranty is a binding contract between the complainant on one hand and the opposite party on the other hand and its terms cannot be violated to the prejudice of the warranty. The present consumer complaint is being liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5. The content of Para – 1 of the complaint are not denied.
6. The content of the Para – 2 of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge.
7. The content of Para – 3 of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge.
8. The content of Para – 4 of the complaint are denied. It is submitted that the complainant as per invoice has purchased the Laptop on 01.03.2006 and the warranty was valid for one year from the date of purchase. The system worked perfectly well for the period more than one year from the date of purchase as no complaints was ever received by the answering respondent, hence there is no deficiency in goods or service on part of the answering respondent.
9. The content of Para – 5 of the complaint are not denied.
10. The content of Para – 6 are matter of record hence not denied.
11. The content of Para - 7 of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that the complainant as per the invoice complainant had purchased the Laptop on 01.03.2006 and the warranty was valid for one year from the date of purchase. It is further submitted that no warranty had been extended by the complainant. The system worked perfectly well for the period more than one year from the date of purchase as no complaints was ever received by the answering respondent, hence there is no deficiency in goods or service on part of the answering respondent.
12. The content of the relief clause are denied in toto. The relief claimed is violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty of the product and is also grossly inflated and totally unsubstantiated. No relief as claimed by the complainant is liable to be allowed. Rather the complaint is liable to be dismissed being an abuse of the process of law. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this forum may dismiss the present consumer complaint in the interest of justice, fair play and equity.

It is the case of the complainant no. 1 that he has purchased a Laptop for complainant no. 2 being his daughter for the price of Rs. 32,759.06/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Seven hundred Fifty Nine and Six Paise only ) as will appears vide invoice no. 04 dated 01.03.2006 which has been annexed as Page no. 6 of the complaint. It appears that soon after the purchase, the Laptop did not work properly and complainant deposited the Laptop in service center for repair on 04.04.2007 which was again returned to him after repairing on 15.10.2007 but even after repair the aforesaid laptop is still defective. It appears from the judicial record that notices were issued to all opposite parties and registered notice did not returned and as such the notices have been deemed to be served on all the parties hence vide order dated 17.05.2013 this forum has decided to hear the case in ex – parte manner against non appearing opposite parties. However opposite party no. 4 has filed a rejoinder which is on the record. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 has stated that the Laptop was purchased on 01.03.2006 and hence the warranty will deemed to be expired after one year. It has been further asserted that the aforesaid laptop was sent to service center for repairing of opposite party no. 4 on 04.04.2007 i.e. after one year. It has been further submitted that the complainant has filed this case at the fag end of expiry of warranty period so as to harass the opposite parties and destroyed their reputation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has replied all the aforementioned submission of the counsel of opposite party no. 4 and submitted that opposite parties has deliberately harassed the complainant after selling defective Laptop to the complainant no. 2

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judicial record.

It is true that vide invoice which has been annexed on page – 10 of the complaint petition, it appears that the aforesaid Laptop was purchased on 01.03.2006 for sum of Rs. 32,759.06/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and Six Paise only ). Opposite party no. 4 has also not denied this fact. The complainant has annexed the warranty certificate on page – 5 of the complaint petition from perusal of which it appears that the aforesaid Laptop was installed on 10.05.2006 and warranty was to continue till 11.06.2007 and the complainant has submitted the aforesaid Laptop for repairing in service center of opposite party no. 4 was deposited on 04.04.2007 i.e. within warranty period.

Hence, the opposite parties are bound by their own document i.e. warranty certificate and they cannot plead that the warranty will continue from one year from its date of purchase i.e. 01.03.2006 because the warranty period was to began from the date of installation i.e. from 10.05.2006.

The assertion of the complainant that the Laptop was defective and thus it was deposited for repairing on 04.04.2007 in service center and same was returned to him after repair on 15.10.2007 i.e. after six 6 months eleven 11 days has not been factually denied.

It is needless to say that service center is the creature of opposite party no. 4 and it was duty of opposite party no. 4 to get the matter investigated but instead he has simply denied on pertex of want of knowledge. It has been asserted by the complainant that even after repair the computer is not working properly and there is no document on the record to show that the aforesaid assertion of complainant is without basis. It goes without saying that the complainants are chasing the opposite parties for about more than 7 seven years to show that they have suffered much. The very fact that there is differences in the description of model of Laptop has not been denied this is clearly proves after comparing the detail mentioned in invoice memo and warranty certificate.

In view of the fact and circumstances discussed above we find and hold that opposite parties have committed deficiency by selling defective Laptop to the complainants and not removing the defects even after keeping the same for about six 6 months.

In view of the aforesaid fact we direct the opposite party no. 4 to return the price of Laptop i.e. Rs. 32,759.06/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and Six Paise only ) with interest @ 10% ( ten ) per annum from the date of installation i.e. 10.05.2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy or certified copy of this order failing which the interest rate will be 12% ( twelve ) per annum till its full and final payment. Prior to refund of aforesaid amount the old laptop will have to be returned to the opposite party no. 1 by the complainant.

We further direct all the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President