SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

   This complaint  has been filed by the complainant  against  opposite parties  for getting an order directing opposite parties to refund Rs.53,000/- the value of laptop with compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

   Facts of the case are that the complainant purchased  a Laptop from  1^st OP Model  No. Laptop HP155-DU1065TU  The OPs promised that laptop got  year warranty, the HP laptops are best for use and they don’t compromise on the quality  of the  devices  they produce in the markets and  if any damages noticed during the usage, the OPs are ready to repair or replace them within the warranty period without  any hesitation. In the initial usage within one month the devices has got  poor functioning and laptop started to flicker, blue screen seen later, the complainant visited the  OPs for repairing  and got rectified.  Soon after the repair the system  was again got stuck, the complainant  approached  the OPs to rectify the mistake again, but  they didn’t even respond properly  and said to approach  the HP service centre. Later on the complaint registered on the  company site as per the service centre suggested a technician  had come to repair and got back the device after rectifying it. Repeatedly  the same problem occurred  even after many restorations, the system handed over to the  site engineer for keeping  under his observation and returned the  laptop after the rectification  and said no more complaints will be raised.  Even after the several  number of repair  sessions done the  laptop is on the  same line of issue  listed above, it is at the worst stage of even not  shutting down.   Complainant  stated that  his daughter is not able to resume with her assignments unless and until the  laptop is either replaced or compensate.  Hence the complaint.

   Notices were served to the OPs.  Both OPs contest the case by filing written version through their  counsel that there is no deficiency on their part and as soon as they received complaint from the complainant , they attended the same and the defect in the laptop was rectified and their technician went to the house of the  complainant to find out the defect for rectifying the defect.  At last, complainant refused to get the laptop repair and asked to replace the laptop with a new one. 1^st OP admitted the purchase of laptop and  he denied  the entire allegations raised  by the complainant.   1^st OP further submitted that the laptop is not having any persisting complaint  as alleged by the complainant.  As the  complaint was occurring only occasionally  the 1^st OP could not find it when it was brought their institution  by  updating the software.  There after it was lockdown due to covid 19 when the complainant again approached him with the same complaint.  So the sales executive of  1^st Op contacted the sales and service head of 2^nd OP  to do the needful to rectify the  laptop and as per the direction of  2^nd OP the complainant was  informed to take the  laptop to the authorized  service centre. There is no deficiency of service on their part hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against 1^st  OP.

   2^nd OP in their  version submitted that the laptop purchased by the complainant is  a  well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. And the laptop in question is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same are depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling  of the system and the software installed on the system.  Any mishandling or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working  of the system.  Therefore, if any component is defective, either changing the same or repairing the same would solve the entire issue with the laptop.  The whole  purpose of taking the warranty by consumer is because the electronic system is always vulnerable  to failure due to  some or any of the defects in the components.  Accordingly in the present case, when the laptop in question  was reported for issues, the service team of the OPs had promptly attended to the issues and resolved  the  same  by carrying out repair, performing  trouble shooting  and replacing  the required  parts as per the warranty terms. The laptop is  provided with base warranty for a period of one year  from 11/12/2020 to 10/12/2021.  On receipt of the complaints, the service team of the OPs attended to the complaints promptly, subjected  the laptop for diagnosis, resolved the issues by carrying out repair, trouble shooting, updating the BIOS, drivers, reinstalling windows and by replacing the required parts as per the terms of the warranty.  The complainant  refused  for the offer and intimated the service team that he would take the matter legally.  The OPs has acted  as per the warranty obligations and extended support to the complainant. 2^nd OP further submitted that there are  no known issues , manufacturing defects or technical faults in the laptop, post/repair service  and replacement of the required parts, the laptop is working fine as per specification.  The 2^nd OP is  ready, willing and offers to diagnose and resolve the issues if  any in the laptop.  The OPs  are not liable for refund the  cost of the laptop  and compensation.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

      In order to prove the allegations complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A14.  The lap top  was submitted and harked  as MO1.  While the  case is pending complainant has filed an application to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the lap top and to prepare a report regarding its defects.  As per the direction of the commission , the expert appointed has filed  a report with  photo.  The said expert  also was examined as a witness(PW2) from the side of complainant and his report was marked as Ext.C1.  PWs 1&2 were subjected to cross-examination for  OPs 1&2.  On the side of OPs, the Managing partner of 1^st OP institution has filed his chief affidavit and has been examined as DW1. 

    Complainant stated that within a span of only  2 months the lap top did not work properly and his daughter could not continue her online study.  On 3/5/2021, the defective lap top was entrusted to 1^st OP and only after 1 month 1/6/2021, it was returned with an assurance that the defective will not repeat.  But on the same day the lap top became defective and again approached  to 1^st OP on 4/6/2021.  But they returned it without rectify the defect.

         From the submission made by the complainant and the documents and from the contention of 2^nd OP, it is clear that OPs specifically admitted that there is defect to the laptop and their service team rectified the defects in several times .  2^nd OP further  admits that  there is no power issue in laptop also reported.  2^nd OP further admits that all the above defects happened within the warranty period.  According to 2^nd OP, any mishandling of the system or installing pirated software  would affect the proper working of the system.  But here Ext.C1 expert has not reported such a finding of mishandling of the laptop.  Hence the said point of 2^nd OP cannot be believed.

   Expert has deposed while he was in witness box, that better is to replace the laptop instead of  repairing and also opinioned that the defect as seen in the laptop will not be happened due to fall in water, due to dust or due to attack of virus and voltage issue and earth leakage  also will not cause, the present defect in the laptop.

     In the  expert report  Ext.C1 the expert has observed that the mother board  and processor and key board are at fault and also reported that when the system was kept working for  a whole day, the screen started to get blurred and it got struck as well. Even after restarting, the system did not respond.  Sometimes, it works after one or two hours of idleness.

   Though the expert was subjected to cross examination by the OPs 1&2 in detail, there is no reason , to disbelieve the expert report Ext.C1 and the findings mentioned in it.

   The deficiency on the part of the 1^st OP is reflects from the fact that the complainant entrusted the laptop in question to his institution on 3/5/2021 for  rectifying the defect but it was returned  with a report that the defects were rectified only after one month ie, 1/6/2021.  But the system shows the same defect on the same day and entrusted  again on 4/6/2021.

   Taking over all view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the above mentioned circumstances where the laptop have become defective within months after purchase within the warranty period, in that circumstances, the agony of the complainant and his daughter  can be imagined , when it was purchased for her  education purpose, is put into much harassment and mental agony.  This commission is of the view that it is better to order  for the refund of the amount instead of replacing the laptop because  if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if  develops the defect again, then the consumer will  be put to much larger harassment because he had to file another complaint.

   Keeping  in view  all the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussion, complaint is entitled to get relief.

   In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties 1&2 are directed to refund Rs.53,000/- , the value of laptop to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation  for the mental agony  and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within one month from the date of  receipt of the certified copy of this order.  On compliance of the order,  complainant will have to return the laptop to 2^nd opposite party.

Exts:

A1- Service call report Dtd.3/7/21

A2- Material notes dtd.3/5/21

A3- Tax invoice

A4- Registered  notice

A5- postal receipt

A6-Acknowledgment card

A7- Receipt of second hand laptop

A8&A9-Bill dtd.11/12/20,3//5/21

A10- bill issued by Inspire Technology dtd.3/7/21

A11&A12-copy of letters dtd.19/7/21

13- postal receipt

A14- Receipt dtd.20/7/21.

B1- Bill

C1- Expert Report

PW1-M.P.Sasindran-Complainant

PW2- Gopakumar.M.C- witness of PW1

DW1- Amal.A- 1^st OP

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                              MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                              Molykutty Mathew                              Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR