By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- On 09.11.2019, the Complainant had purchased a Lap Top-HP-DC 0049TX, 8GB, ITB 256 SSD, HGB GPP WIN-10 from the 1st Opposite Party. It had warranty up to the month of November 2020. The price of the Lap Top was Rs.86,000/-. But on 12.09.2020, the key board of the Lap top became defective and therefore, a complaint was given to the 1st Opposite Party. Subsequently, the Complainant approached their service centre nearby Pushpa Junction and requested to repair the lap top immediately as the Complainant’s daughter had to attend online classes. Then, the Complainant registered a complaint in the toll free number 50532102 on 13.09.2020. It was informed the Complainant that it would be repaired, reaching home within one week. But, after the month of November, the Lap Top was not repaired saying that the warrantee period was over. The online classes of the daughter of the Complainant discontinued from the month of September. Hence this complaint with prayers to direct the Opposite Party to give an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation.
3. On getting summons from the Commission, the 1st Opposite Party appeared and filed version, the contents of which in brief are as follows:-
The fact that the Complainant had purchased the Lap Top on 09.11.2019 from the 1st Opposite Party is admitted. The 1st Opposite Party is only a product seller and at the time of the transaction, the Complainant was informed that any complaint
in respect of the product arose, the Complainant had to contact either the manufacturing company or the service centre. The Complainant was also convinced that the 1st Opposite Party would not be responsible for any defect in the product. After the purchase of the Lap top, the Complainant had not approached the 1st Opposite Party till date. The complaint is filed in the misconception that the 1st Opposite Party’s shop is the authorized service centre of the 2nd Opposite Party, the manufacturing company. The 1st Opposite Party has no service centre of his own. All the allegations in the complaint are against the service centre, the 3rd Opposite Party. If the Complainant has faced any misbehavior or service deficiency only the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties are responsible. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the 1st Opposite Party.
4. Inspite of summons the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties did not appear and file version and hence they were set exparte.
5. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and documents Exts.A1 and C1 were marked from his part. Ext. A1 is the Invoice/bill issued to the Complainant by 1st Opposite Party on 09.11.2019 showing the purchase price of the Lap Top of Rs.86,000/- and Ext.C1 is the report submitted by the Expert Commissioner on 25.04.2023. The Complainant was examined as PW1. From the side of Opposite Parties Ext.B1 was marked but 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties adduced no oral evidence and the complaint was finally heard on 16.09.2023.
6. Considering and verifying the facts/circumstances of the case and the evidence brought up before us by the parties to the Complainant, Commission raised the following points for deciding the case:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
- Relief to the Complainant..?
7. Point No.1:- The fact that the Complainant had purchased the Lap Top
from the 1st Opposite Party is admitted and is evident from Ext.A1. Ext.C1 report which shows that “ HP Lap top screen are not working properly. Sometime lots of color lines seen in that screen. It is not possible to operate a Lap top with this screen. Replace of new screen with upgraded technical specification is only option for smooth functioning”. In the light of the Expert Commission Report, we are convinced that the defect of the Lap top is not curable and replace of the Lap top is the only remedy. A complaint was registered by the Complainant but it was not considered and acted accordingly by the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. This is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties one and two. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and contest the case. But they did not appear and hence we have no other way than to accept the contentions of the Complainant and the version of the 1st Opposite Party. Therefore point No. 1 is proved only against the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten thousand only) to the Complainant.
The above amounts shall be paid jointly and severally by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment of the amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me
and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 20th day of October 2023.
Date of filing:17.02.2021.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Vinodan. A Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Invoice. dt:09.11.2019.
C1. Commission Report.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Warranty and Support Guide.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
