By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
On 21/02/2018 Complainants purchased one Laptop worth Rs. 25,900/- fromopposite party No.1 shop, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. But within 6 months of its use it got dyfunct. Complainant entrusted the laptop in opposite party No.1 shop for repair and service. But after repair laptop again got dyfunct at once and complainant repaired it at least three times after purchase. Now the above mentioned laptop is completely useless and opposite party ‘told to complainant that they are unable to repair the above laptop. Then complainant asked them to replace it with a good working laptop, but they are not ready to replace it. Hence this complaint. There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
2. Complainants again stated that, on every time the laptop was given for service the opposite party No.1 had put a sticker on the laptop. The numbers mentioned in the stickers are 2285, 2661 and 2681 which are seen now also there. Complainants stated that, opposite parties will keep the register relating with this number in their shop. They again stated that after the third service over, the warranty period also over. Due to Corona pandemic the next consecutive services and repair were done by opposite parties at complainant’s house and they received Rs. 2000/- to 4000/- from complainant as service charges. But they did not provide a bill for the services they have done. Thereafter opposite party stated that the laptop is non repairable. Complainant stated that there is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Hence this complaint
3. The prayer of the complainants are that, they are entitled to get the refund of Rs. 25,900/- the cost of the Laptop or a new laptop with same specification and they are also entitled to get compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainants and cost of the proceedings.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and opposite party No.1 appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. But opposite party No.2 did not appear before the Commission after receiving the notice. Hence opposite party No.2 set exparte.
5. In their version opposite party No.1 stated that, they are denying all the allegation levelled against them by complainants in their complaint except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that complainants purchased the laptop worth Rs. 22,650/- from their shop on 21/02/2018 and the above laptop had one year warranty which was provided by the company. Hence the service and other matters are the obligation of opposite party No.2, the company. They are only selling the product manufactured by opposite party No.2. They denied the contention of complainants that the laptop got dyfunct within 2 - 3 months of its purchase. They again admitted that complainants had approached them for service of the laptop after 6 months of its purchase and they informed opposite party No.2 about this and opposite party No.2 serviced the laptop and gave back to complainant. Thereafter complainants did not approach any of the opposite parties. Opposite parties again stated that complainants had filed this complaint before this Commission on 20/11/2021 that means after 3 years and 9 months from the date of purchase of the laptop. If the laptop got dyfunct within 2-3 months after its purchase complainants will surely approached this Commission at that time. They again stated that they are the sellers of computer and mobile phones and they are selling the products which are manufactured by opposite party No.2.
6. They again contented that complainant approached them for repairing the laptop on 21/08/2018 which was before the one year warranty period given by company. Thereafter complainant did not approach them for any of the complaints regarding the laptop. Thereafter complainant approached them after 1 ½ years that means on January 2020 and opposite parties rectified the complaint of the laptop. Then on 14/05/2020 during the Corona pandemic seasons, complainant called them for repairing the laptop and opposite party No.1 gone to complainants house and repaired the laptop. It is not during the warranty period hence opposite party No.1 received Rs.2200/- from complainant and given new keyboard to complainant. They again stated that during the corona pandemic seasons every offices and institutions remained closed and the laptop and other electronic equipments have no use at that time. The non using of electronic equipments amount to damage to that equipments. Due to the negligence from the side of complainant, the laptop got dyfunct. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainants, they filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents they produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of bill provided by opposite party No.1 to complainants. Ext.A2 is the copy of service report provided by opposite parties to complainant on 21/08/2018, Ext.A3 series are the photographs of the sticker affixed on the laptop by opposite parties while receiving the laptop for service. Thereafter opposite party No.1 filed affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is the copy of cash bill dated 14/05/2020 for Rs. 2,200/- for purchasing a new keyboard .
8. Heard complainants and opposite party No.1. Perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost
9. Point No.1 & 2:-
Case of the complainants is that the newly purchased the laptop got dyfunct within 6 months of its use. The above laptop sold by opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.2 having one year warranty. The above laptop regularly dyfunct after purchase and complainants approached opposite party No.1 nearly three times within the warranty period and thereafter so many times they approached the opposite party No.1 for repairing the laptop.
10. Opposite party No.1 stated that they had repaired the laptop on 21/08/2018 which is within the warranty period .Thereafter complainants approached them only on 14/05/2020 and they repaired the laptop and provided a new keyboard to complainant after receiving Rs.2,200/- because that defect was caused after the warranty period. They again stated that the defect of the laptop was caused due to the negligent and careless use of complainant.
11. After perusing the affidavits, documents, complaint and version, it is clear that the laptop mentioned in the complaint had problems. Complainants in their complaint stated that the laptop got dyfunct on 21/08/2018 that means within 6 months of its purchase. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that complainants approached them for repairing the laptop on that day and they had repaired the laptop and gave back to complainants. Both parties are admitted that which happened within the warranty period of one year. From the complaint and version it is clear that the laptop is defective from the beginning. Opposite party No1 also admitted the same. As per Ext.A3 series photographs which show some stickers in that pictures. Complainants say that, the stickers were affixed by opposite parties when receiving the laptop for repair. That is a believable statement. Opposite party No.1 never denied that the stickers which are seen on Ext.A3 are not affixed by them. These are the regular practice of service centres to affix stickers while receiving for repair. So the contention raised by complainants are believable. As per that document nearly three times complainants had entrusted the laptop for repair whether it is within the warranty period or not. Moreover opposite party No.1 did not deny that document produced by complainants. As per Ext.A2 document, we are on the opinion that complainants had approached opposite party No.1 on 21/08/2018 for repairing the laptop which was within 6 months of its purchase. In that document, the problem reported by the customer is ‘’keyboard not working ‘’. Engineer observation was “we have checked the problem, then issue found the keyboard.”Then action taken was keyboard replaced.”Hence we are on the opinion that the laptop which was purchased by complainants on 21/02/2018 became dyfunct on 21/08/2018 during the warranty period. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that some problems caused to the laptop of complainants.
12. Another contention of opposite party No.1 in the version was that the
complainants were filed this complaint on 20/11/2021 which is after 3 years and 9 months of the purchase of the laptop. But opposite party No.1 did not mentioned about this in his affidavit and argument note. If it is so , as per Ext.B1 document which was submitted by opposite party No.1 before the Commission, it is clear that complainants had approached opposite parties on 14/05/2020 and they repaired and changed the keyboard after receiving Rs.2,200/- from complainants. Hence complainants approached the opposite parties on 14/05/2020 and on 16/12/2021 they filed this complaint before this Commission. So there is no question of limitation arises. Moreover opposite party No.1 admitted that they had gone to complainants house for repairing the laptop after receiving the amount from complainant.
13. Another contention of opposite party No.1 is regarding the price of the laptop.
Complainants in his complaint stated that the price of the laptop is Rs.25900/- . Opposite party No.1 stated in their version and affidavit that the complainants stating wrong statements in his complaint regarding the price the laptop. Opposite party No.1 stated that price of the laptop is only Rs. 22,650/-, the other amounts are the price of the accessories of the laptop. So the complainants were telling lies about the price of the laptop. We are on the opinion that from Ext.A1, it is clear that the price of the laptop and the price of the accessories of the laptop. In that document the price of the laptop is clearly mentioned as Rs. 22,650/-. Common people like complainants will always added the price of the accessories with the price of the laptop which is Rs.25,900/-. In their prayer complainants never asking for Rs.
25,900/-. They had not demanded the price of the laptop in their prayer. So no
question regarding the truthfulness of complainant.
14. In their version, opposite party No.1 stated that, they are selling the laptop which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. That statement of opposite party No.1 is true. But opposite party No.1 must know about the quality and details of laptop which was sold through their shop. A common man will approach the shop from where he bought the laptop for repair. It is the duty of opposite party No.1 to contact opposite party No.2 for further transactions. Hence opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Opposite party No.1 in his version and affidavit admitted that the laptop of complainant got dyfunct within 6 months of its purchase and they had repaired after consulting with opposite party No.2. Moreover opposite party No.1 admitted that complainant had approached them on January 2020 due to the complaint of laptop and they had repaired the laptop by sending a mechanic. Opposite party No.1 again admitted that on 14/05/2020 they had gone to complainants house for repairing the laptop and they had repaired the laptop after receiving money from complainants because that defect caused not within the warranty period.
15. From the above facts we are on the opinion that the laptop bought by complainant had manufacturing defect. It had problems from the beginning which was admitted by opposite party No.1. The documents also show that the laptop of the complainants had problems from the beginning and opposite party No.1 had repaired the laptop within the warranty period and after the warranty period. As per Ext. A3 series photographs it is clear that complainants had approached opposite parties so many times for repairing the laptop. It is a clear deficiency of service from
the side of opposite parties. After receiving notice opposite party No.2 did not appear before the Commission to prove the case against them. Moreover the above laptop manufactured by them had manufacturing defects. There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
16. Hence complainants are entitled to get a new laptop of same specifications and complainants are entitled for reasonable amount of compensation and cost of the proceedings. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. In the above facts and circumstances we allow the complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
17. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party No.2 is directed to provide a new laptop of same specifications to complainants and complainants are directed to returned back the old laptop to opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainants on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainants.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Copy of bill provided by opposite party No.1 to complainants.
Ext.A2 : Copy of service report provided by opposite parties to complainant on
21/08/2018.
Ext.A3 : Series are the photographs of the sticker affixed on the laptop by opposite
parties while receiving the laptop for service.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1
Ext. B1 : Copy of cash bill dated 14/05/2020 for Rs. 2,200/- for purchasing a new
keyboard .
