BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

02^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP either to replace the Laptop in question or refund him a sum of Rs.37,750/-, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused due to deficiency of service with litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had purchased a Dell Laptop Inspiron 3421 on 15^th September 2013 for a sum of Rs.37,750/-.  It was purchased online from Ebay.in.  That the complainant after purchasing the Laptop had started using the same for listening the audio classes and he noticed some defects in the sound quality as the audio and mic in the Laptop was a single jack unit.  That the complainant lodged a complaint with OP and technician of OP replaced the motherboard but the replacement of the motherboard did not resolve the problem.  Subsequently the technician of OP again replaced the motherboard for second time but to the shock of the complainant replacement for the second time was also of no any help and the complainant lodged a complaint with a senior executive of OP.  That they were not able to diagnosed the problem.  That the services provided by the OP was disappointing and he was assured that the problem in the Laptop resolved after third servicing.  That the executives of OP Company replaced the motherboard for third time and also replaced few other parts of the Laptop and installed some parts but the parts so installed did not fit inside the Laptop in question causing damage to the Laptop.  That the complainant was disturbed and irritated by the kind of service provided as the problem in the Laptop was not resolved even after servicing for the third time.

That when complainant started using Laptop there was huge loud sound coming out of the Laptop which was the sound of the fan and also the panels of the Laptop were getting heated and the CPU was taking only 40% usage load and the temperature was above 70 degree.  That when complainant used tool called Real Temp he came to know that instead of 15 processor the Laptop had 17 processor and on verification he came to know that, the executives of OP has installed a wrong motherboard into the said Laptop.  That the sound in the Laptop at the time of working was unbearable for an hour the keypad lock and the panel were damaged.  That the service provided was not professional and the screw which were tightened by the executive has made a mark on top surface of the Laptop.  Finally when they have put back the Laptop completely they have not aligned the edge to the side corner.  That the complainant was asked to get the Laptop service again and again and when he lodged a complaint he was asked by the executive to get the Laptop service again which was not agreed by the complainant.  That the complainant was attending coaching class of GATE 2014 online and due to inefficiency of the executives of the OP in rectifying the problem in the Laptop caused great inconvenience to complainant in attending classes and to do preparations for his exams.  That despite several requests made by the complainant, OP failed to rectify the mistake and also replace the Laptop or refund the amount paid for the Laptop.  That the complainant sent a letter dated 21^st March 2014 to OP informing them about the difficulty faced by him but there has been no response from OP.  That due to deficiency of service on the part of OP the complainant got frustrated and cheated and put to great hardship and inconvenience.  That since OP failed to respond to any of the mails sent by the complainant he had no other options but to approach the Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice served OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

That the complainant has purchased the Laptop in question after having fully satisfied with the said Laptop.  That the said Laptop was originally invoiced by OP on July 05, 2013 in Thailand.  That the Laptop in question was originally sold in Thailand and later the service tag transfer was done on the name of the complainant.  Hence the system has warranty which qualifies for only a repair in India.  That as per warranty clause OP is to carry out the repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty and in case the warranty of the product is expired or warranty clauses are violated then the company will repair the product on chargeable basis.  That complainant contacted OP on 10^th January 2014 and reported the issue of distorted sound from the system.  The technicians of OP diagnosed the system and did troubleshooting.  They changed the settings on the system and requested the complainant to observe the system performances and inform them in case the issue is not resolved.  That the issue was not resolved hence OP arranged for an onsite service to the place of complainant to replace the required parts as per the warranty policy.  That the technicians of OP replaced the required parts but the issue was not resolved.  Hence, the complainant was informed to visit the authorized service center to get the issue resolved but the suggestion was diagnosed by the complainant and complainant adamantly demanded replacement as per the warranty policy as the system in question qualifies for only repair in India.

That to resolve the issue as a goodwill gesture, OP arranged for another onsite service to replace the additional parts.  That at the time of the service the technician found that the bottom base was also damaged and was required to be replaced, hence the technicians informed the complainant that another service is required to replace but the same was declined by the complainant.  That the complainant again contacted OP and reported the issue of heating and he was requested to visit the authorized service centre for repairs but the same was declined by the complainant and he adamantly demanded replacement with new system and the same was declined by the OP as per the warranty policy.  That the complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions has filed the aforesaid complaint and is wrongfully trying to extract the compensation from the OP without any deficiency of service on the part of OP.  That OP has not violated any terms and conditions of the warranty policy.  That OP has provided their services without any delay or negligence whenever asked by the complainant as OP is a very reputed and worldwide famous company and always ready to assist its customers as per the warranty terms and conditions.  That there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

For the above amongst other reasons mentioned in the version OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. On the rival contention of the parties to the proceedings, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit.  Written arguments have been submitted by OP.  Both parties have submitted written arguments in support of their respective contentions.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7.  It is not in dispute the complainant had purchased a Laptop manufactured by OP for a sum of Rs.37,750/- from Ebay.in via online.  Complainant alleges that, when he started using the Laptop in question, he noticed some defect in the sound quality as the audio and mic in the Laptop was a single jack unit which he immediately brought to the notice of the OP and the technicians of OP replaced the motherboard, and even after such replacement of the motherboard the problem was not resolved.  OP admits that on 10^th January 2014 the complainant reported the issue of distorted sound from the system.  According to OP the said issue was rectified by their technician and later it was complained by the complainant that issue was not resolved therefore they arranged an onsite service to replace the required parts as per the warranty policy.  These admissions on the part of OP supports the allegations of complainant that immediately after purchase of the Laptop in question defect in sound system was found and though it was attended but the same was not rectified.  Therefore, for the second time the technician of OP tried for rectification of the said defect.

8. The complainant alleges that at the first instance itself the technician of OP replaced the motherboard to resolve defect in the sound system.  Complainant further alleges that when the issue in the sound was not resolved even after replacement of the motherboard the technician of OP replaced the mother board for the second time, even thereafter the issue was not resolved.  Though OP admit that their technician tried to rectify the issue raised by the complainant twice by replacing certain spare parts but does not specifically admit that the motherboard was replaced.  However OP also did not deny the allegation of complainant that motherboard was replaced twice by their technician.

9. The complainant further claims that when the issue was not resolved even after replacement of motherboard twice he complained to the executives of OP and there was no proper response from them and they were not able to diagnose the problem.  He further alleges that, the executive of OP replaced the motherboard for the third time and also replaced few other parts of Laptop and some of the parts installed did not fit inside the Laptop causing damage to the Laptop.  OP in their version and also in the affidavit did not specifically deny that the motherboard was replaced for the third time as alleged by the complainant.  However they admit that for the third time the repair work was undertaken by the technician and certain parts were replaced.  OP also did not specifically deny that some of the parts replaced in the Laptop did not fit inside resulting in damage to the Laptop.

10. Complainant alleges that when he started using the Laptop after third replacement of the motherboard there was huge loud sound coming out of the Laptop and it was the sound of the fan and also the panels of the Laptop were getting heated and the CPU was taking 40% usage load and the temperature was above 70 degree.  OP did not specifically deny these allegations of the complainant in their version and in the affidavit evidence.  OP also did not deny the allegations of complainant that the complainant found by using a tool called Real Temp which revealed that his system which was supposed to have 15 processor had 17 processor thereby the executives of OP have installed wrong motherboard into his Laptop.  OP did not specifically deny these allegations.  Thus, it is established by the complainant that despite changing the motherboard twice the defect in the Laptop in question was not set right and the issue persisted, thereby causing huge inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.  Complainant states that, he was attending GATE classes of 2014 online and due to deficiency of service on the part of OP, in resolving the issue in Laptop caused him great inconvenience and hardship in attending the classes and to do preparations of the exams.

11. OP took up a contention in their version that the Laptop in question was originally sold in Thailand and later the service tag transfer was done on the name of complainant and hence the system has warranty which qualifies for only repair in India.  To substantiate this contention OP did not produce any documentary evidence including the copy of the warranty.  It is also not in dispute that all the above mentioned issues arose in the Laptop during the warranty period of one year.  It is apparent from the admission of OP itself that they could not resolve the issues in the Laptop despite changing the motherboard thrice.  Furthermore as alleged by the complainant while replacing the motherboard for the third time the executives of OP have installed a wrong motherboard thereby creating more problems to complainant rather than solving them.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the Laptop is suffering with serious manufacturing defect, which could not be resolved by OP despite repairing it and replacing the motherboard thrice, we feel it appropriate to direct the OP either to replace the Laptop with a new functional Laptop or pay a sum of Rs.37,750/- to the complainant being the price of the Laptop.  The failure of the OP in rectifying the issue and replacing the Laptop, certainly amounts to grave deficiency of service.  The said conduct of OP must have put the complainant to great inconvenience, hardship and mental agony, for which OP has to be directed to pay adequate compensation apart from cost of litigation.  Accordingly issue No.1 is answered.        

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.   

13. Issue No.2 - In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed either to replace the Laptop in question with a new functional Laptop or refund Rs.37,750/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.  Further OP shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for having caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony, together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 02^nd day of February 2017)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 02.07.2015.

1. Sri.Sharath B.C

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 10.08.2015.

1. Sri.Nikunj Murukutla.    

Document produced by the Opposite party:

   MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

      Vln*