IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 17th day of September 2021.
Filed on 03-08-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.177/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Steephen Joseph 1. The Managing Director
S/o Joseph Joseph Hewlett Packard (HP)
Vallliyara Corporate Head Office
Avalookkunnu.P.O 1st to 5th Floor, Tower of D&E
Alappuzha-688006 DLF Cyber City Phase III
(Party in person) Gurgaon, Haryana
(Adv. V. Vijaykumar)
2. TVS Electronics Ltd
Door, No.39/4113
Ground Floor, Sky Bright,
M.G.Road, Ravipuram
Cochin-. 682016
(Exparte)
3. Petra Infosec Pvt. Ltd
C/o Laptop Clinic, Basement
Floor, National Builders
Shopping Complex, Bank Jn.
Edappally, Kochi-682024
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
Complainant purchased HP Pavilon 15-N203TX NB PC (Notebook Serial No.5CD3490XRD) in June 2014 expending Rs.65,000/- and purchased extended warranty expending Rs.12,000/- from the central square mall Kochi who is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party is the manufacturer, 2nd, 3rd,and 4th opposite parties are the authorized customer service centers of 1st opposite party. The warranty of the product was from 14.04.2014 to 13.04.2019. The warranty exhausted on 13.04.19.
2. After a short span of the purchase of the item and well within the warranty period the laptop began to show defects and this became a regular feature. Though the complainant intimated the defects to the 1st opposite party through toll free number effective service was not done. There was major defects and problems in the functioning of the laptop. The laptop was with the opposite parties for more than half of the period of the warranty and the complainant could not utilize the item for his regular work during all these days.
3. Inspite of repeated queries the item still remains with the opposite parties without any proper rectification and the complainant is prevented from utilizing the laptop for his needs since it was purchased on 14.04.2014. Since the warranty period is exhausted opposite parties are evading any responsibility for the defects. More than half in the warranty period the laptop was with the opposite parties for curing the defects. Laptop is still in the custody of opposite parties 19 times there were defects and it was informed to the opposite parties. Inspite of lawyers notice sent to the opposite parties there was no reply. Complainant sustained heavy loss, damage and mental agony and other sufferings due to the act of opposite parties. The laptop is having manufacturing defects. There is deficiency of service from the side of all opposite parties and hence opposite parties may be directed to replace the laptop with a brand new one or to reimburse the price of Rs.65,000/- along with interest @ 12 %. For deficiency of service complainant is seeking an amount of Rs.50,000/- and is also seeking Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation on account of financial loss and mental agony.
3. Opposite parties No.2, 3 and 4 remained exparte.
4. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The product manufactured by this opposite party passed through stringent quality checks and test trial before the actual start of the commercial production. It is also subjected to process of quality inspection before it is dispatched to channel partner for sale on a principal to principal basis. 1st opposite party is supported by excellent authorized channel partner and service centers.
5. The present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable. The allegations are baseless and with malafide intention. To prove the manufacturing defect expert report is not available. The laptop purchased by the complainant is well established product in the market and over a period of years the consumers are using the product. Whenever any customer reports to a service centre for repairs, complaints/ grievances are recorded in the job card. Thereafter standard checks are carried out at the service centre and observation is recorded by the service engineer on the job card.
6. Complainant purchased a laptop during June 2014 and used the laptop in question for 6 years from the date of purchase. It shows that the laptop has no known issues or manufacturing defects and is in absolute worthy condition. The jobs carried out on the laptop are minor repairs which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the laptop. The working of the laptop depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the software installed on the system. Any mishandling of the system for installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system. When the laptop was reported for the issue the service team of the opposite party had promptly attended to the issue reported and resolved the same as per the warranty terms and laptop is working fine.
7. The warranty benefits provided by this opposite party on the said laptop are for a defined period. The warranty is explicit and the terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms that the warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the warranty ends date has been reached. The laptop is provided with base warranty for a period of one year from 04.04.2014 to 13.04.2015. It had an extended warranty for 3 years and it expired on 13.04.2019. On verification it is noticed that the laptop was produced in the service centers for several times and the service team attempted to the complaints promptly and resolved the issues. It was recorded that the laptop is working fine as per specifications. There are no known issues, manufacturing defects or technical faults in the laptop. This opposite party is ready and willing to diagnose and resolve the issues if any in the laptop. Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
8. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-
- Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the laptop exchanged with a brand new one or in the alternative. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize the price of Rs.65,000/- along with interest?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss and mental agony?
- Reliefs and costs?
9. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary.
10. Point No. 1 to 4:-
PW1, the complainant purchased a lap top manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 13/4/2014 for an amount of Rs. 65,000/-. The product had a basic warranty for one year from the manufacturer. PW1 purchased extended warranty for a period of 4 years by spending an amount of Rs.12,000/-. Thus the product had a total warranty of 5 years starting from 13/4/2014 to 12/4/2019. According to PW1 problem started within one year of purchase and even the mother board had to be replaced several times. He had given 19 defects occurred on various dates starting from 17/1/2015 to 3/4/2019. Several times it was produced for repairs and they took more than one month to cure the defect. Now the product is with opposite parties 3 and 4 which was given for repair. Hence according to PW1 though he spend Rs.65,000/- for purchasing the product and spend an additional amount of Rs.12,000/- by taking extended warranty, he was unable to use the product to his satisfaction. Hence he has filed the complaint to replace the product or in the alternative for the price of the product along with interest. He is also claiming Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss and mental agony.
11. Opposite parties 2 to 4 remained exparte and opposite party 1 alone filed a version mainly contenting that they are making laps tops of high quality and they are having excellent authorized channel partner and service centers. It was contented that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has not produced report of an expert to prove the allegations. They also contended that the warranty is for a definite period and now so that the warranty is expired they are not liable. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4. Though 1st opposite party filed an affidavit the witness was not available for cross examination. The affidavit contains averments more or less similar to same which was given in the version.
12. The fact that PW1 purchased the lap top on 13/4/2014 and that it was having a basic warranty of one year up to 12/4/2019 given by the 1st opposite party is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that complainant had taken an additional warranty for 4years ie, up to 13/4/019. According to PW1 problem started to the product from 17/1/2015 ie, within one year of purchase and in the complaint he has given 19 instances of complaints by which he had to produce the lap top for service. The contention of PW1is supported by Ext.A2 series service call reports which shows that the lap top was produced for service several times. It is true that Ext A2 series are for the period of 2019 but PW1 had explained that the previous records were lost in a flood which occurred during 2018. However he had produced the case numbers before 2019. From 25/9/2019 onwards the lap top is in the custody of opposite parties 3 and 4 which was entrusted for repairs and so far it was not returned. The contention of 1st opposite party who is the only contesting opposite party is that their product is having good quality and that they are having wide net work of service centers with qualified service engineers for repairing the same. It may be true but according to PW1 he had to entrust the product several times for repairs. To put it on his own words “ 8 times the mother board was replaced.” It is an indication that though 1st opposite party claimed that their product is having good quality the experience suffered by PW1 is otherwise. He purchased the product for an amount of Rs.65,000/- and had also taken extended warranty by spending Rs.12,000/-. A person who is spending Rs. 65,000/- for purchasing a lap top is expecting good quality upon the product. Since he had taken extended warranty by spending Rs.12,000/- good service is expected from the opposite parties. According to him though he gave happy satisfaction on 5/4/2019 it was as per the request of the engineer. Though he purchased the lap top by spending huge amount he was unable to use the same even during the warranty period. They took about 1 ½ months to replace the mother board and it is to be noted that mother board was replaced 8 times. Though PW1 admitted that opposite parties had cured the defects they took about 1 ½ months each time. The cross examination of PW1 shows that he was not satisfied with the lap top and the service offered by opposite parties 2 to 4.
13. Admittedly the warranty expired on 13/4/2019. Now it has become a practice to do the service during the warranty period and wash of the hands once the warranty is expired. Such a practice has to be nipped in the bud. A person who is spending so many amounts for purchasing a product that also manufactured by famous companies like 1st opposite party is expecting good quality over the product. Here in this case PW1 has taken additional warranty for 4years by spending Rs.12,000/- and so he is expecting good service from opposite parties 2 to 4. It is true that the warranty period expired on 13/4/2019 but according to PW1 the problem started even during the 1st year of purchase and it continued several times. For changing the mother board each time service centre took about 1 ½ months and the mother board was changed 8 times. It is an indication that PW1 was unable to use the product to his satisfaction, even though he purchased the same for an exorbitant amount and took additional warranty by spending Rs.12,000/-. As stated earlier though 1st opposite party filed a detailed version and filed chief affidavit they were not available for cross examination by the complainant.
As held by the Hon’ble Surpeme Court in AIR 1999 SC 1441(Vidhyadhar Vs Mankikrao)
“WHERE a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”
14. Though PW1 was thoroughly cross examined nothing was brought out to discredit his testimony. PW1 is a BCA graduate and is able to understand minor defects of the lap top. In said circumstances PW1 is entitled to get the lap top repaired free of cost though the warranty period expired on 13/4/2019 since the complaints started within one year of purchase.
15. As stated earlier though PW1 purchased the product by spending Rs.65,000/- and took extended warranty by spending Rs.12,000/- he was unable to use the same to his satisfaction. There was several defects and the product was at the service center for repairs for several times. The mother board was changed 8 times and for each change of mother board service center took 1 ½ months. Definitely it amounts to deficiency of service and so PW1 is entitled for compensation and we are limiting it to Rs.20,000/-. These points are found accordingly.
16. Point No.5:-
In the result complaint is allowed in part.
A) Opposite parties are directed to cure the defect of the lap top and return the same to the complainant in working condition.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.20,000/-as compensation for deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost from the opposite parties.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17th day of September, 2021.
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Steephen Joseph(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of warranty details
Ext.A2series - Service call reports
Ext.A3 - E-mail communications with OP (40 pages)
Ext.A4 - Copies of Advocate Notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
