(Delivered on 30/01/2023)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.`

1.         Appellant –Sony India Private Limited  has preferred the present  appeal challenging  the judgment and order dated  04/04/2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha in Consumer Complaint No.  111/2013 whereby the complaint  filed by the complainant /respondent  came to be allowed  and appellant  was directed  to provide  new laptop  of same model within  the period of one month or in the alternative  to pay a sum of Rs. 37,820/- along with  interest at the rate of 6% from 10/09/2013 as well as  compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation. (Appellant and respondents  are  hereinafter  referred  to by  their  original nomenclature)

    2.     Short facts leading to filing of the appeal  may be narrated as under;

            Complainant – Mr. Yogendra Pranlal Bhagat claims  to  be resident  of   Village  Deoli, District Wardha. The complainant has contended that her daughter Ms. Purva was taking education in engineering and so was in need of laptop for studies and for doing special  programming  of Auto Cad program. The complainant therefore approached the O.P.No. 2-Zoom Computers who was the dealer and purchased one laptop of Sony Company, Model No. SVE-1511ENWIN5, Sr. No. 27554992 for a sum of Rs. 37,820/-. At the time of purchasing the laptop the O.P.No. 2 also gave a warranty  of one  year from the date of purchase.  The complainant has contended that  after  purchasing  the  laptop  trouble  started in the laptop within one month. The complainant has contended that  there was trouble  in the  touch pad and so the complainant  took the laptop to the Service Center of O.P.No. 1-Sony India Private Limited and Service Center rectified the defect and handed over the laptop back to the complainant. But within  a few months there was  again trouble  in the laptop and this time  there was a major  defect in the Mother  Board. Due to this defect the daughter of the complainant was unable to make use of the laptop for her educational purpose.  The complainant has contended that since there was a defect the O.P.No. 3- Sony Authorized Service Center rectified the same but during this period  the daughter of the complainant was unable  to  make use  of the laptop and she suffered  a lot.  It is the case of the complainant that  on 10/09/2013  again on the third occasion there was  trouble  in the battery  of the laptop  in as much as there was  heating of the battery. The complainant  then took the laptop to the O.P.No. 3 which was Authorized Service Center  and O.P.No. 3 kept the laptop and told the complainant that there was damage to the battery.  According to the complainant the laptop was not repaired till 30/10/2013 and laptop was lying with the O.P. No. 3 for two months. The complainant  thereafter  continuously pursued the matter  and also sent  mails  but  there was no response  and the  O.P. did not  rectify the  defects.  The complainant  then sent  mail on 02/10/2013, 28/09/2013 and 19/09/2013 and  asked  them  to provide  a new laptop as there  was major  defect in the  laptop but  nothing happened.  The complainant has contended that by  providing  a defective  laptop the O.Ps.  have  committed  deficiency  in service  as well as  Unfair Trade Practice  The complainant  there were  constrained  to  file the present  complaint.

3.         The O.P.No. 1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version. The O.P.No. 1 has contended that  at the  time of  purchase   several models of laptop were shown  the  complainant and complainant  himself  has chosen  the model  after  proper satisfaction. The O.P.No. 1 has also duly rectified the errors whenever the laptop was brought by the  complainant.  The O.P. Nos. 2 has also contended that  there was  no defect in the laptop  and in fact  the complainant  had  installed  some  third party  software  in the laptop and due to the same there was  damaged to the laptop. There was no deficiency  in  service  on the part of the O.P. and  no unfair trade  practice and so the complaint  was not tenable  in law and needs  to be  dismissed.

4.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha thereafter recorded the evidence led  by the complainant as well as by O.P. The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha also went through the documents as well as written notes of argument filed by the complainant as well as O.P. After  appreciating the documentary  evidence  and notes of arguments, the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha reached to the  conclusion  that  the laptop provided  to the complainant  was defective in nature  and there was  deficiency  in  service  as well as  unfair trade practice.  The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha therefore, partly allowed the complaint and  directed the appellant  to provide the new laptop of the same model or in the alternative  to  refund the amount of Rs. 37,820/- to the complainant  along with  interest  at the rate of 6% as well as compensation  of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of  litigation.  Again this judgment and order dated 04/04/2015 the appellant /O.P.No. 1 has come up in the present appeal.

5.         We have heard Mr. Ambilwade, learned advocate for the appellant  and Mr. S.A. Khan, learned advocate for the  respondent No. 1. We have also gone through the record  and proceedings in Consumer Complaint No. 111/2013, copies of which  are filed on record.  On the basis of the facts stated above following points  arises for our determination  with  our finding recorded  thereon and reasons  to follow.

Reasons and Findings

6.         There is no serious dispute  that the respondent No. 1/complainant  has  purchased one laptop of Sony Company bearing model No.  SVE-1511ENWIN5, Sr. No. 27554992 on 19/10/2012 for a sum of Rs. 37,820/- from the O.P.No. 2- Zoom Computers who was the dealer.  It is also not in dispute that the laptop was purchased by the complainant  along with  warranty  of one year from the date of purchase.

7.         At the outset, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has not properly  appreciated  the facts on record.  Secondly, it is contended that the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has committed in error in giving findings in as much as though the complainant  had alleged  defects in the  laptop purchased from the O.P.No. 2. The complainant had not supported the same along with any report of independent expert in terms of the Consumer Protection Act but we will deal with submissions subsequently.

8.         Mr. S.A. Khan, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1/complainant  has rebutted  all the contentions  and has submitted that  the O.P.No. 2 had sold the laptop which was defective in nature after receiving the entire consideration.  In order to  support  this contention  the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1/complainant  has drawn our attention  to the documents  on record namely the copy of invoice and copy of job sheet . We find that the respondent No. 1/complainant has placed on record tax invoice regarding purchase of laptop on 19/10/2012.  The complainant  has also placed on record  the copy of warranty   which shows that  at the time of sale of laptop warranty of  one year  was also  provided  from the  date of  purchase. It is submitted  by  Mr. S.A. Khan, learned advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant  that  the laptop developed trouble  within one  month of delivery  and so on two occasions laptop was required  to be taken  to the O.P.No. 2-Zoom Computers and thereafter to Authorized  Service Center of  O.P.No. 1- Sony India Private Limited.

9.         During the course of argument, Mr. S.A. Khan, learned advocate for the respondent No.1/complainant has drawn our attention also to the various mails sent on 02/10/2013, 28/09/2013 and 19/09/2013. From the  papers  placed  on record it is seen that  earlier  there was a trouble  in the laptop relating  to  touch pad which was not working. It appears that the Service Center carried out necessary repairs but could not remove the defects and so touch pad was replaced.  It appears  that  thereafter  again  fault   developed  on 10/09/2013 in the  battery of the laptop due to which  the internal parts  were heating  up.  There is no serious  dispute that  on this occasion  laptop was  retained by the Service Center and promise  was given to  carry out   urgent  repairs but same  was not done.

10.       If we turn to the written version filed by the O.Ps., they have  not only  denied  the contentions but on the other hand  they have contended that  the  complainant  himself  should  have been carefully  in choosing  the laptop but  we do not find any substance  in this contention   for the  simple reason  that  the O.Ps. being the  dealer and manufacturer  were  under the  bounden  duty to supply  laptop  of  good quality   after  having  accepted the  huge price of Rs. 37,820/. Further if we go through the written version the O.Ps. have taken  another  plea that  the laptop was  inspected  by the service engineer  and service engineer  found only  minor issues  but  this stand taken by the  O.Ps. is falsified  by the mails  filed on record.  In case all  defects of laptop  were duly rectified  then there was  no occasion  or reason  for the complainant  who was a consumer  and had purchased  the laptop for her daughter  to send mails  to the O.Ps.  Admittedly in the present case the O.Ps.  have not  filed any affidavit  or report  of service engineer  to show that there was  no defect  in the laptop or that all defects  were rectifies. As such the contention raised in the appeal that there were no defects in the laptop or that the defects were duly rectified is devoid of any substance.

11.       Coming now to the second  contention, it is  contended  by the learned  advocate for the appellant  that  whenever the complainant  alleges  the defect in the  goods  purchased   then  burden lies  upon  the complainant  to adduce  positive evidence or evidence of  an expert  on this aspect.  On this aspect the learned advocate  for the appellant  has relied upon  series  of  judgments namely the  case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium Vs. Thajes Ravi, (reported  in  I(1992)CPJ 97), S.P. Barthwal Vs Maruti Udyog Limited, (reported in I(2003)CPJ 298) and Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Vir Pratap,( reported in II(1997)CPJ 81).

12.       We have gone through these judgments including the case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium cited supra. In the case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium Vs. Thajes Ravi the complainant had purchased  a B.S.A. Cycle  and frame  was  broken after 11^th  day. In that case  it  was observed  that breakage of the  cycle  may be  due to some  inherent manufacturing  defect and  burden was upon the complainant  to adduce  expert opinion.  However, we feel that  the judgment  in the case of Sabeena Cycle Emporium  cited supra as well as  other  judgments  which are  delivered  by the State Consumer Commissions  were  not  applicable  to the facts of the present  case. Further  as  in the present  case the complainant  has  come  with the plea  that the  laptop has developed  a defect  not only within  the period of  warranty but also within the period of  one month. Moreover, the defects continue despite repairs being carried out.  Obviously it was the duty of the O.Ps. to provide  the laptop of good quality free from  all defects and Consumer  was also  entitled  for the same after  having  paid the requisite  price. We are unable to  accept  the contention  of the appellant  that  whenever any  defect is alleged  the  complainant  must approach  along with report  of an expert  and so  this  contention  is devoid of  substance.

13.       During the course of argument the appellant has also relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the  case of Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL World Wide Express Courier Division  of Airfreight Ltd., (reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2508).  In that case  it was observed  that  liability  of consignee to the terms  of  the contract and damage can be awarded  to the extent  of liability.  In the  present  case  admittedly the laptop was provided  along with the warranty of one year and  defect  arose  within one month of purchase  and also  thereafter.  As such the O.Ps. themselves was bound  by the warranty. If we go through the impugned judgment  dated 04/04/2015, the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha has elaborately  dealt with  this aspect and has  also given finding  that  no expert opinion  is  required on behalf of the complainant  when facts are supported  by the  record and we do not find  any error in findings  given by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha.

14.       In the  light  of the aforesaid  discussions we are  unable to accept  the contentions advanced  by the appellant  and so we hold that  the appeal is  devoid  of any substance. As such we feel that no interference is called for in the judgment and order dated 04/04/2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha  and so we pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.          Both parties shall bear their own cost.  

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.