By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the deficiency of service, related with the repair of laptop.

2. Brief of the complaint:- On 28.08.2012 complainant purchased a Sony Vaio laptop model No.SVE15116 from 1^st opposite party. After 3 days the laptop showed some complaints. Complainant reported this matter to the 1^st opposite party, as per their advise complainant entrusted the system to 2^nd opposite party the service centre at calicut and the defect was cured from there. But the very next week itself the system showed same complaint. Then complainant informed this to 1^st opposite party and demanded for replacement of laptop but the 1^st opposite party made arrangements to repair the system with the help of 2^nd opposite party. After three months the system was not in working condition, hence the complainant registered the complaint and informed to 1^st opposite party. Again 1^st opposite party adviced the complainant to entrust the laptop to opposite party No.2 service centre. After 5 days he got back the repaired laptop. Subsequently complainant noticed a gap in between the bottom side of the body of the laptop and it is detached from one corner. Again complainant contacted to opposite parties and demanded for replacement. Eventhough 1^st opposite party offered onsite warranty at the time of purchase, the complainant could not avail the benefit of the same. Thereafter on 21.09.2013, 1^st opposite party extended the warranty by receiving Rs.2,500/- from the complainant. Now the system has the warranty up to 27.08.2015. On 09.12.2013 again the system became defective and the body parts showed gap and detached. Again complainant approached 2^nd opposite party, but they demanded Rs.5,000/- as repair charge. The complainant purchased this laptop for his son, he is a Btech Computer Engineering Student. The problems of the laptop caused much inconveniences to the studies of his son as well as he himself. According to complainant the act of the opposite parties that demanding huge amount as repair charge within the warranty period is deficiency of service. Hence filed this complaint to get compensation.

3. Notices sent to opposite parties. 1^st opposite party appeared and version filed but 2^nd opposite party's notice returned as unclaimed, hence set ex-parte on 10.01.2014. Subsequently 3^rd opposite party impleded and version filed .

4. 3^rd opposite party filed version on behalf of all the parties. They admitted the purchase of laptop on 28.08.2012 and extension of warranty up to 27.08.2015. Again they admitted that the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party on 19.03.2013 with the complaint of 'no display', for the other repairs the 2^nd opposite party has no record as alleged by the complainant. Upon inspection of the laptop on 19.03.2013 it was found that the MBX had to be replaced, since the laptop was within the warranty period, the MBX was duly replaced without any cost and the same was delivered to the complainant on 23.03.2013. Thereafter once again complainant approached to 2^nd opposite party that there is gap in body of the laptop. On inspection it was found that some screws on the bottom cover were missing. 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to deposit the laptop there and they offered to repair laptop free of cost, since it is under extended warranty period. But the complainant refused to deposit laptop and demanded replacement of the same. This opposite parties could not comply with his demand that of replacement, then the complainant filed this complaint to exhort money from the opposite parties. Thereafter on 08.03.2014 during the pendency of this case, opposite parties once again inspected the laptop due to the cosmetic problems in the body of the laptop and requested the complainant to deposit the laptop to them, so that the same can be repaired under terms of the extended warranty but the complainant not agreeable to this demand and remain adamant on replacement of laptop.

5. Opposite parties further stated that they have always attempted to take care of the complaints of the complainant and has never been deficient in the services provided to the complainant. Hence the allegation of the deficiency in services and unfair trade practice raised by the complainant are false and baseless.

6. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

7. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and cross-examined by opposite party No.3. Ext.A1 to A4 documents were also marked. Ext.C1 is the report filed by the Expert Commissioner. Ext.A1 is the Invoice dated 28.08.2012 and Ext.A2 is the Warranty pack for Sony vaio. Ext.A3 is the Receipt Voucher dated 21.09.2013 and Ext.A4 is the Certificate dated 31.05.2014. Opposite party No.2 already set ex-parte and other opposite parties not adduced oral evidence. Heard the complainant and opposite party No.3. On perusal of the evidences, records and submissions we finds that there is some defects in the laptop. The actual defects can be detected by an expert technician. On 21.09.2013 1^st opposite party extended warranty by receiving Rs.2,500/-. Now the system has the extended warranty up to 27.08.2015. In the version, 3^rd opposite party admitted that during the period of warranty the product goes to be defective due to improper material or workmanship, sony service centre will repair the product free of charge subject to conditions of their warranty. In this case complainant produced the system before the Forum. On a petition filed by the complainant an Expert Commissioner was appointed by this Forum. The Expert Commissioner inspected the system in the presence of both the parties. In Ext.C1 Commissioner stated that “ All the components brought for inspection had no physical damages. As such, the product was in clean state and were usable, the moment it is switched on. Screw on the back, near to the label bearing Model number was not tight and could not be tightened by the service person present; internal plastic holder was not visible in this screw slot(that is broken away) whereas it is present in the hole opposite, on the same side. The other hole screw could be tightened. Since screw could not be tightened, it is directly affecting the opening of LCD cover. Opening of the LCD cover was found to strain the plastic portion to the extend that a careless opening of LCD may damage/break the strained portion. Normally, such things are not expected in a laptop and is an indication of bad mechanical design of the product.

8. For all laptops, there are direct keyboard short-cuts to access BIOS, by which a user can verify the components present on the Motherboard. Here, the company representative could not show the short-cut as working. He explained that it may be due to bad OS installation by complainant. But, it is my experience that the short cut must work irrespective of the state of Operating system(OS not installed, OS crashed or OS installation is incomplete/not in order/not licensed). If what the service representative stated is true, my observation here point to bad software design of product. If what he stated is false, my observation here points to improper BIOS configuration by which users freedom to access BIOS anytime is hindered. Later the service representative provided access to BIOS of laptop, by forcing hard disk failure. But, this freedom is enjoyable only by a Type 3 user, not by a Type 2 user as the equipment is under warranty. Motherboard of the product was replaced during service period. Parties present confirmed this also. It is observed that the BIOS configuration subsequent to the replacement is in an incomplete state. For example the Machine Name attribute was having the value Reserved instead of actual model name of the product. It was confirmed by the complainant that it was having the actual model name in its original condition of purchase. Leaving this attribute value at the current state(ie Reserved) may not create problem for a Type 3 user, but, my experience suggest that this can create problems to a Type 2 user who want to install additional software components.

9. The laptop was originally having Windows 7 Operating system; user, at his discretion, has installed Windows 8 Operating system and that is the current operating system present. The product is supporting Windows 8 and provide driver software under this operating system, from their support site. A type 2 user must be able to install this drivers from this site and installing such drivers need not be interpreted as violation of warranty terms since the product support Windows 8. The instruction was to install Windows 7 drivers first and patch it to make the component work under Windows 8. Here, the first steps of installing Windows 7 software driver was failing(as stated by complainant's son), but, Windows 7 drivers could be installed/re-installed prior to replacement of motherboard(as stated by complainant's son). Complainant has raised issues in the following: insufficient battery backup, disk errors in hard disk, problem with wi-fi, heating while using, bluetooth-sound-graphics drivers not working properly, unable to use other additional software on the laptop. No significant evidence could be found to PROVE or DISPROVE these claims. However, my experience suggest that such a bunch of complaints on Windows Operating system is directly related to improper installation of the drivers for devices inside Laptop. On inspection, it is found that the Windows 8 installation is activated, but drivers installation were incomplete. The complainant's son himself admitted that driver downloaded from support site could not be successfully installed”. The alleged defect existing in the laptop of the complainant can be repaired and rectified by replacing its necessary spare parts and installing proper software.

10. In the version, 3^rd opposite party admitted that they are always been willing to attend the services. in this case the complainant bought this system for the support of his son's study, since he is a computer engineering student, a system is highly essential for his works related to his study. In this case, even though opposite parties offered onsite warranty, several times complainant's son approached opposite party No.2 to service this laptop. But opposite parties not given proper attention to provide good service to this complainant. This laptop showed a bulk of complaints from the very beginning of the purchase date itself. Even though warranty extended till 2015 opposite party No.2 demanded huge amount to repair the system. Expert Commissioner stated that disputed system still remaining defective. The alleged defect existing in the laptop of the complainant can be repaired and rectified by replacing its necessary spare parts and installing proper software. Hence we opine that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

11. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get back repaired laptop with compensation and cost of the proceedings. The Point No.2 decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to take the custody of disputed laptop from the Forum and repair and rectify all the defects in the laptop within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only as compensation and Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of May 2015.

Date of Filing:18.02.2013. PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Saidalavi. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Invoice. Dt:26.08.2012.

A2. Extended Warranty Pack.

A3. Receipt Voucher. Dt:21.09.2013.

A4. Certificate. Dt:31.05.2014.

C1. Commissioner Report.

MO 1. Disputed Laptop.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-