DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Thursday the 30^th day of May 2024

CC.32/2022

Complainant

Faseela. N,

D/o. Ahammed,

Rose Mahal, Chinnankaithara,

ITC Road, Madathil Padam,

Kuruvanthuruthi, Kozhikode - 673631

           (By Adv.  Sri. K.M. Thomas)

Opposite Parties

1.                     DIGI Business Lines,

Ground Floor, Darussalam Complex,

Mavoor Road, Kozhikode - 673004

2.                     HP Care,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1^st Floor, Bassan Complex,

Pushpa Junction, Kallai Road,

Kozhikode

         Suppl. 3.     The Managing Director,

HP Computing and Printing System India Pvt. Ltd,

2F1, 24, Solapuria Arena,

Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560030

                 (OP1 and OP2 By Adv.  Sri. Pavithran. K, OP3 By Adv. Sri. Naushad Kallada)

                             (Supplemental OP3 impleaded as per order dated 15/02/2023 in IA No. 39/2023)

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT              

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 20/08/2021 the complainant purchased a HP laptop from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 93,500/- including insurance and extended warranty. But from 28/08/2021 the laptop ceased working. Though she reported the complaint to the first opposite party several times, there was no positive action. Thereafter she entrusted the laptop to the second opposite party service centre on 04/10/2021 as per the instruction of the first opposite party. The second opposite party had assured to repair the laptop within 5 days. But after 5 days, on enquiry, the second opposite party stated that the spare parts would come only after 3 weeks. After 3 weeks, the laptop was returned to her stating that the same was repaired. But it was not in a working condition.Again, she approached the first opposite party. Then a person stated to be a service agent of the company came to her house and took the laptop with him for service/repairs. The laptop was returned after 3 days and then also it was found to be not working. Again on 10/11/2021 the laptop was taken for repairs. On 23/12/2021, it was returned to her stating that the repairs were done. But the laptop was not working properly. Her demand for replacement of the defective product with a new one or refund of the price was turned down by the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for replacement of the laptop with a new one or refund of the purchase price of Rs. 93,500/- and also compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

3. The first and second opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The purchase of the laptop is admitted. No insurance amount or extended warranty amount was collected from the complainant. The price of the carry bag was Rs. 1,000/- approximately. The total amount collected was Rs. 93,500/-. The warranty is provided by the HP Company. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the manufacturer is not impleaded. When the laptop showed complaint, the complainant approached the second opposite party on 4/10/2021 and repairs were done free of cost. On 08/11/2021 the complaint was again reported and it was attended by the second opposite party. Again, the technical staff of the second opposite party inspected the house of the complainant on the complaint that the children were not able to play the games. The laptop was taken to the service centre and was monitored for one day and was found that there was no defect and this was informed to the complainant. No charges were levied from the complainant. The problems to the laptop occurred due to downloading of some games by the children. There is no manufacturing defect in the product. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. None of the reliefs is allowable. With the above contentions, the first and second opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The manufacturer was impleaded as supplemental third opposite party as per order dated 15/02/2022 in IA No. 39/2023. The supplemental third opposite party was set ex-parte.

5.       The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?                       2) Reliefs and costs.
6.  Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.   
7. We heard both sides.
8. Point No.1:-  The first opposite party is the dealer, the second opposite party is the authorised service centre and the supplemental third opposite party is the manufacturer of HP laptop. The complainant purchased HP Laptop Core 17 from the first opposite party on 20/08/2021. The total price including that of the carry bag was Rs. 93,500/- as can be seen from Ext A1 tax invoice. The grievance of the complainant is that the laptop supplied to her began to show complaints several times and the opposite parties could not rectify the defect in spite of repeated repairs and her request for replacement of the defective product with a new one or refund of the price was turned down by the opposite parties. The prayer in the complaint is for replacement of the product with a new one or refund of the price along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
9. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant got herself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the compliant and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the tax invoice dated 20/08/2021, Ext A2 is the HP care slip dated 4/10/2021 and Ext A3 is the HP care slip dated 08/11/2021.
10. The supplemental 3^rd opposite party has not turned up to file version. The first and second opposite parties have admitted in the written version that complaints were raised with regard to the laptop by the complainant. But according to them, all such complaints were promptly attended to by them and the problem was when some games were downloaded and played by the children. But the first and second opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked by the complainant.
11. Admittedly, the product was purchased on 20/08/2021. Complaint arose for the product during the warranty period. The first complaint was on 28/08/2021 within 8 days of the purchase. On 04/10/2021 the laptop was entrusted to the second opposite party for repairs and the issue was ‘sometimes not powering on and no display’. The laptop was returned to the complainant after repairs on 28/10/2021 as can be seen from Ext A2. But the problem persisted and on 08/11/2021 the laptop was again entrusted to the second opposite party for ‘hanging and slow issue’ as can be seen from Ext A3. Again it ceased working and was taken for repairs by the technical staff. It was returned to the complainant on 23/12/2021 and according to PW1 even now laptop is not functioning properly. Thus, it can be seen that the laptop became defective soon after the purchase and it had to be repaired several times within a short span of time. PW1 has given evidence that even thereafter the problems persisted. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant.
12. As per section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 ‘defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product. In the instant case, there is shortcoming in the standard which is required to be maintained, because even after repeated repairs, the problems of the laptop could not be resolved. It is true that there is no technical/expert report to show that product suffered from any inherent manufacturing defect. But it may be noted that the evidence of the case itself speaks that repeated repairs /services were required for the product within a few months of the sale. The fact that it required substantial repairs within a short span of time goes on to show that there is inherent defect in the product. The defects could not be properly rectified even after attempts made by the opposite parties and in these circumstances no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that repairs were required at a regular basis. That being so, according to us, the stand of the complainant in insisting for replacement of the product with a new one is fully justified.
13. When a person buys a new laptop, he/she expects that it would work without any problem for at least a reasonable period of time. Here the laptop started giving problems soon after the purchase and the defect could not be rectified properly by the opposite parties in spite of repeated repairs /services. Obviously, the complainant has suffered due to the defects and the product had to be entrusted again and again for repairs and even then it was not working properly. No purchaser of a new laptop expects this sort of mental agony and strain. The concerns of the complainant over the laptop could not be properly addressed by the opposite parties. In order to provide justice to the customer, the manufacturer and the dealer should either replace the laptop or refund the price. Sale of a defective laptop and the further inaction on the part of the dealer and the manufacturer in the matter of replacement of the defective product amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service.
14. After having expended money for the purchase of the laptop, the complainant was forced to suffer a defective laptop, which was purchased for the studies of her daughter. Due to the defects and deficiencies, the laptop had to be constantly entrusted to the service centre. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to immense mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice indulged by the opposite parties and the gross deficiency of service on their part. The complainant deserves to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
15. To sum up, we hold that there is proof of unfair trade practice and deficient service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 3. The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the product with a new one of the same description, or in the alternative, refund of the price. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered. She is also entitled to get Rs. 4,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable.  
16. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.32/2022 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are hereby directed to replace the HP Laptop Core 17, 15-DK2075TX, S/N: CND127CZDB (Product No. 4A 3K5PA#ACJ) of the complainant with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defects, or in the alternative, refund the purchase price of Rs. 92,500/- (Rupees ninety two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant, after taking back the laptop.  

d) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered. 

d) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

e)  The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30^th day of  May,  2024.

Date of Filing:   25.01.2022

                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                  PRESIDENT                                                                                     MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Tax invoice dated 20/08/2021.

Ext.A2 – HP care slip dated 4/10/2021.

Ext.A3 -  HP care slip dated 08/11/2021.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Faseela. N (Complainant)

                                                                     Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                             PRESIDENT                                                                             MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                               Assistant Registrar.