THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.245/2015

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2019

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                        Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.     :  Member

                                                                       Smt. Priya S., BBL, LLB, MBA          :  Member

ORDER

Present: Hon’ble Smt. Rose Jose, President:             

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.47,000/- the price of the laptop for non-repairing its defects at free of cost within the warranty period and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss and other hardships suffered due to the said act of the opposite parties and also the litigation expenses.

Petitioner’s case is that, he had purchased a laptop (SNSB No.CJ194508447) from Dubai manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 28/09/2013 for Rs.47,000/-. The system was having global warranty for one year. After return to his native place he was using the laptop and it functioned in good condition for some months. But in the month of August, 2014 its keyboard showed some complaints and so he entrusted the set with the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party at Ernakulam on 22/09/2014 for repair. They returned the set after repair only on 02/10/2014 ie. after the warranty period stating that it has loose connection. When he operated the laptop at his house there was no display. So again he took the laptop to the 2^nd opposite party and informed the matter and then the 2^nd opposite party advised to take it to the 3^rd opposite party, another authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party at Kozhikode. As such he entrusted the set with the 3^rd opposite party and after inspection they told that the complaint is with the motherboard and it is to be changed and demanded Rs.15,000/- for the same.

The petitioner further stated that, he had entrusted the laptop with the 2^nd opposite party within the warranty period but they returned the set without repair only after the expiry of the warranty period. Since he had entrusted the laptop with the 2^nd opposite party within the warranty period, the opposite parties are bound to repair the defects properly at free of cost. The demand for Rs.15,000/- for replacing the board by the 3^rd opposite party is illegal and he is not bound to pay any amount to the 3^rd opposite party for the repair works. Now the set is with the 3^rd opposite party. The said act of the 2^nd opposite party is deficiency in service and as the manufacturer, the 1^st opposite party also is liable for the act of the 2^nd opposite party. Thereupon he had issued notice to the opposite parties dated 20/01/2015 demanding to return the set after repair free of cost and compensation for his inconveniences and other sufferings. Though the opposite parties received the notice they have not returned the set or compensated him as demanded or even sent a reply to his notice. As a student the said act of the opposite parties caused much mental pain and inconveniences to him and that also affected his studies very badly. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and hence this petition seeking reliefs.

The 1^st opposite party filed version denying all the allegations of the petitioner as false and baseless. It is admitted that the petitioner had purchased their laptop Model No. K45VJ-VXO17H on 28/09/2013 from Dubai as stated in the petition but denied the allegation that the laptop showed complaints of keyboard after few months of its use as not true or correct, and stated that the petitioner had approached the 2^nd opposite party with issues of keyboard only on 22/09/2014 ie. just 5 days prior to the expiry of its warranty. It is stated that after receiving the set on 23/09/2014 immediately they placed an order for the keyboard before them and they dispatched the keyboard to the 2^nd opposite party on 24/09/2014 itself and the 2^nd opposite4 party received the same on 26/09/2014 and they replaced the keyboard on 27/09/2014 and closed the case in their software system. But the petitioner had taken back the set only on 30/09/2014. Before taking back the set the petitioner had checked its functioning and was fully satisfied with its functioning. Since the complaint was within the warranty period they have not collected any service charge or spare part charge. Generally the duration of repair works of any kind will take7 days from the date of receiving the product and in case of replacement of parts it may take few more days depends on the availability of parts and so there was no deliberate delay on their side in repairing the complaint as alleged.

The allegation that when the petitioner operated the laptop at his house there was no display and as advised by the 2^nd opposite party he entrusted the set with the 3^rd opposite party and they demanded Rs.15,000/- for changing the motherboard etc. was denied as absolutely false and stated that the petitioner had never visited them for a 2^nd time with any complaint. It is admitted that the 3^rd opposite party informed the petitioner about the cost of the motherboard since it was out of warranty but they are ready to replace the board without collecting any service charge. Moreover as per their instruction the 3^rd opposite party also offered discount to the motherboard but the petitioner was not amenable to any of their offers and illegally demanded replacement of the board at free of cost. Since the said demand was untenable to the terms and conditions of the company this was not acceptable to them. The allegation and demands in the notice were irrelevant. They have already resolved the fault of the motherboard and even after repeated requests the petitioner was not willing to take back the set and he is standing with his illegal demands and this petition is filed as a tactics to pressurize them to satisfy his illegal demands. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged and no loss or any difficulties has been suffered by the petitioner due to any of their acts and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed a joint version with the same contentions as that of 1^st opposite party. They admitted that the petitioner had approached the 2^nd opposite party for the 2^nd time with complaints of display and the 2^nd opposite party advised him to approach the 3^rd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party demanded  Rs.15,000/- for changing the motherboard as true. But it is stated that the 3^rd opposite party demanded amount for replacing the board as the set was entrusted with them after the expiry of the warranty period. It is further stated that after the expiry of warranty of any product the repair or replacement of parts is subject to payment. They are ready to replace the board without collecting service charge and as per the instruction of the 1^st opposite party they have also offered discount to the board but even then the petitioner was not ready to take back the set and is standing in his demand for free of cost replacement. So they cannot be held liable for the illegal demands of the petitioner. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.

The matters to be decided are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext. A1 to A7, B1, C1 & C2 and deposition of PW1, the petitioner.

Point No. 1: During the pendency of the case the 3^rd opposite party submitted that they have replaced the motherboard free of cost. So the Assistant Engineer, PWD Electronics Section, Kozhikode was appointed as an expert to check the condition of the laptop and to submit report. The expert submitted his report dated 29/07/2016 and was marked as Ext. C1. In Ext. C1 it is reported that “The laptop was inspected in the presence of both parties included in the dispute in my office. I may report that the laptop is now in working condition. No physical and logical complaints were noticed and is working properly without any complaint.”

The petitioner filed objection to Ext. C1 report stating that the expert has failed to note the speed at which the computer is processing, whether the major components of the laptop are original company product or any of these were replaced, the commissioner also failed to report what aspects has been checked or verified by him etc. But in Ext. C1 the commissioner clearly stated that he had inspected the laptop in the presence of both parties. So if the petitioner wants to have a detailed checking then he can submit a work memo before the expert showing his demands. But that was not done by him. So the objection in a later stage in this regard is not sustainable or admissible.

The petitioner was cross examined as PW1. In cross he deposed that he had entrusted the laptop with the 2^nd opposite party with complaints of keyboard and display (page 4-PW1).

The opposite parties produced the copy of the job card dated 23/09/2014 in connection with the repair of the laptop and was marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 disprove the said statement of the petitioner and it shows that the complaint reported was only with regard to keyboard. It also proved the allegation of the petitioner that the 2^nd opposite party had returned the set after repair only on 02/10/2014 as false and the petitioner had took back the set on 30/04/2014.

From the evidence it is found that the petitioner has been using the laptop after inspection of the set by the expert on 29/07/2016 till the time of the 2^nd inspection of the set by the expert on 25/04/2017 ie about 9 months. So though there is reported in Ext. C2 that the laptop is not working at that time and the system is defective one cannot conclusively say that this was due to the manufacturing defect of the system or due to the fault of the repair works done by the opposite parties but it may also happen due to the improper use of the system especially when the petitioner had admitted in cross examination that when the processing was slow he himself had tried to recover the defect after consultation with his friends in the college. To a question he also admitted that he has no knowledge to inspect the technical matter of a computer. If any unskilled person is trying to rectify the defects of an electronic product there was every chance of the product became defective. Hence the finding in the 2^nd report Ext. C2 cannot be taken as an evidence to conclude that the set is having manufacturing defect or the opposite parties was deficient in repairing the set properly.

The laptop was entrusted with the 2ne opposite party on 23/09/2014 ie. only 5 days prior to the expiry of its warranty and as per Ext. B1 it was for the complaint of the keyboard only and the petitioner had taken back the set after replacing the keyboard on 30/09/20414. It is an admitted fact that normally it will take some days to replace the defective part of a product based on the availability of the spare part. So the delay of 7 days for replacing the keyboard cannot be said to be an inordinate delay to attribute deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. If within that period the warranty is expired the opposite party is not liable for the same.

The company is liable to repair any defects of a product or to replace any parts free of cost only within its warranty period. The customers has to bear the expenses after the warranty period. Even then the 3^rd opposite party had replaced the defective motherboard free of cost during the pendency of this petition even though the warranty of the laptop was over. Here there is no evidence before us to see that the complaints of the display or other compla9ints of the set was started within the warranty period or this was the continuation of the first complaint reported. So we didn’t find any deficiency in serviced on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the petitioner. Point No. 1 found accordingly.

Point No. 2: In view of the findings in Point No. 1, this petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the petition.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their costs.      

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2019

Date of filing: 05/05/2015

SD/-MEMBER                          SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

 APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Invoice

A2. Copy of warranty card

A3. Copy of lawyer notice

A4. Copy of lawyer notice

A5. Copy of a/d card

A6. Copy of a/d card

A7. Copy of envelop

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Copy of Asus Product Service Form

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Shamsudheen (Complainant)

C1. Commission report

C2. Commission report

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                             

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT