DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of April 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.128/2007
T.B. Murali S/o. T.A. Bhavadasan Thekkumpurath House Erimayur Alathur Palakkad. - Complainant (Adv.C.B. Anand ) V/s
1. Vipin.R M/s. Denz Computers Geethanjali Building Opposite Chandranagar Post Office Palakkad. (Adv. P. Sreeprakash) 2. Hewlett Packward India Sales Private Ltd “Rubiyan”, Ist Floor 41/1476, Arangath Road Near Veekshanam Press Ernakulam Kochi – 682 018 (Adv. P.G. Sreejith & G. Jayachandran) 3. Hewlett Packward India Sales Private Ltd, Manufacturing 92, Industrial Suburb II Stage Yeshwanthpur Bangalore -560 022 - Opposite Parties (Adv. P.G. Sreejith, G. Jayachandran)
O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President Brief facts of the complaint is as follows.
Complainant purchased a H P Pavilion Laptop computer for his daughter from Ist Opposite Party on 26/06/2007 for Rs.51,050/-. On the next day itself, the complainant noted a white mark appearing on the screen when it was put to use. Thereafter complainant took the laptop to the Ist Opposite party. Ist Opposite party noticed the white mark on the screen. But the Ist Opposite party tried to console the complainant stating that there is nothing wrong with the system. Later complainant issued lawyer notice on July 2007 to the Ist Opposite party stating his grievance. But - 2 - the Ist Opposite party sent reply stating that they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect. One year warranty is also provided for the system. According to the complainant laptop suffer from manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite parties to replace the Laptop with a new one or refund the price of the same with 12% interest from 26/06/2007 till the date of realization and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
2. Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. According to Ist Opposite party it is incorrect to state that the white dot was noticed by the complainant only on 27/06/2007. Complainant was aware of the white dot on the date of purchase itself. The expert opinion of the Commissioner is totally wrong and is without any basis. Complainant has never contacted Ist Opposite party for replacement of the laptop. If at all there is any manufacturing defect in the Laptop, 1st Opposite party is not responsible and it is only the manufacturer who is responsible for the same.
According to Opposite parties 2 and 3, they are not aware of the transactions between the complainant and 1st opposite party. According to them the non production of bill and warranty card by the complainant to prove the date of sale and year of warranty and also to assure that the product is manufactured by the 3rd and 2nd opposite parties absolve the liability of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The defects in the Laptop can occur due to fungus infection, mishandling of the equipment and inexperienced handling of the equipments and several other external factors other than manufacturing defect. Opposite parties are a multinational company having world wide reputation. Each product is tested before sending for distribution. Hence there is no manufacturing defect and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A3 series marked. Commissioner filed report and is marked Exhibit C1. Opposite parties neither filed affidavit nor any documents in support of their contentions. 4. Now the issues for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the goods supplied? 2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Point 1 Case of the complainant is that on the very next day of purchase of the Laptop itself, he noted a white mark on the screen and immediately it was informed to the 1st opposite party. Ist Oppostie - 3 - party took no steps to settle his grievance. The purchase of the laptop is admitted by Ist Opposite party and is also evident from Exhibit A1 and A2. As per the contention of the Ist Opposite party, complainant has purchased the same after noting the white dot on the date of purchase itself. Contention of Ist Opposite party seems to be unreasonable. No prudent man will buy a laptop knowing its defects and that too for the educational purpose of his daughter. Dealer is bound to deliver defect free goods to the consumer. Dealer cannot escape liability stating its upon the manufacturer.
According to 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties, complainant has not produced bill and warranty card to prove his case. The contention is not true. Complainant has produced the bill and is marked as Exhibit A2. Further photocopy of the warranty card is also produced along with the complaint. Further contention is that the defect noted need not be a manufacturing defect. The same can occur due to fungus infection, mishandling and other external factors. Complainant has taken an expert commission where in the commissioner has specifically stated that laptop verified suffers from patent manufacturing defect and the defect is incurable. Commission report is marked as Exhibit C1.
From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the laptop supplied to the complainant suffers from patent manufacturing defects and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,050/- being the price of the laptop together with 12% interest from the date of purchase to the date of complaint and to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of communication of order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of April 2009.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD) - 4 -
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Receipt No.909 dated 23/06/07 of Denz Computers. Ext. A2 - Tax Invoice No.158 dated 26/06/2007 of Denz Computers Ext A3 series- Letter of Advocate. P. Rajendran
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits 1. Ext. C1 – Commissioners Report dated 27/05/2008 Cost (allowed) Rs.2,000/- (RupeesTwo thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
