| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Friday the 25th day of August 2023 C.C.72/2021 Complainant Abisha. K.M, Kavuthi Madathil, Moorikara Post, Kakkodi, Kozhikode -673611 (By. Adv. Sri.Rafthas.P) Opposite Parties - Kannankandy,
Mavoor road, Kozhikode -673004 (By. Adv. Smt. Sujatha.K.N and Adv. Sri. K.Pavithran ) Suppl.2- Lenova Authorized Service Centre, M.A Complex, Aani Hall Road, Palayam, Kozhikode . Suppl.3- Lenova India Pvt Ltd, RBD ICON, LEVEL 2, Dodanagudi Village, Marathahalli, Bangalore -560027 (Impleaded as per order dated 15/03/2022 in IA No.61/2022) (By Adv. Sri. K.V.Omprakash and Adv. Sri. P.Rajeev) ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 04/09/2020 the complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs.42,500/-, availing financial assistance from Bajaj Auto Finance. The laptop was purchased for the purpose of her MCA final year project. Her sister Aparna was paying the EMI regularly for and on behalf of her. But within three months of the purchase, the Laptop started to show complaints and it shut down abruptly while using. She approached the first opposite party dealer and entrusted the Laptop there for service/repairs. After one week, the laptop was returned to her stating that the issue was resolved. But on the next day itself, the laptop became faulty. On contacting the first opposite party, she was directed to the second opposite party, which is the authorised service centre. Her request for replacement of the product was declined by the first opposite party. The second opposite party agreed to rectify the defects. In the meanwhile, she lost several online classes. After repairs, the laptop was returned to her. But on the next day, the laptop was not switching on. Hence she was constrained to approach the first and second opposite parties again. They were not ready to replace the product. She received the repaired laptop and thereafter an email was sent to the third opposite party, which is the manufacturer. But there was no positive response. She lost confidence in the laptop and hence she completed the project using the laptop of another person. The purpose of the laptop was not served. On using the repaired laptop, it was found that the same problems persisted. She was put to intense mental agony and hardship due to the irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which includes the price of the product, the cost of the litigation and compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered. - The supplemental second and third opposite parties were impleaded as per order dated 15/03/2022 in IA No.61/2022.
- The first and second opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing separate written version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
- The purchase of the laptop from their shop is admitted by the first opposite party. It is also admitted that the complainant brought the laptop to their shop alleging complaint and it was rectified and laptop was returned to her. Later when she again approached them, she was directed to the authorised service centre and the defect was rectified. If at all any defect is there, the same has to be addressed by the manufacturer and the authorised service centre. The replacement of the product is the responsibility of the manufacturer. The first opposite party has not compelled the complainant to purchase this particular model laptop. The relief sought for is not allowable and according to the first opposite party, the complaint is only to be dismissed.
- According to the third opposite party, they are always aiming at customer satisfaction as its first priority and value the relationships with customers. The complainant has purchased the laptop in question and the warranty starts from 04/09/2020. The first service order was raised by the complainant on 11/12/2020 relating to the power issue. The motherboard was replaced free of cost and the laptop was returned to the complainant on 17/12/2020. On 19/12/2020 the complainant raised a service order for hanging issue. The problem was with the motherboard and it was replaced again free of cost and the issue was resolved and the laptop was delivered back to the complainant on 24/12/2020. Again the product faced an issue on 26/12/2020. The complaint was with the power button, but after diagnosing there was no issue with power button. The motherboard was again changed free of cost for customer satisfaction. There was no deficiency of service on their part. With the above contentions, the third opposite party also prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
- Whether the laptop in question is having any inherent manufacturing defect?
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext A1 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
- We heard both sides.
- Points 1 and 2: These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The first opposite party is the dealer, the second opposite party is the authorised service centre and the third opposite party is the manufacturer of the laptop in question. The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The allegation is that the Lenovo Laptop sold to her became defective soon after the purchase and the opposite parties could not rectify the issues properly. According to the complainant, due to the defect in the laptop, she lost her online classes and she had to depend upon the laptop of others for completing her MCA final year project and she was put to intense mental agony and inconvenience due to the unfair trade practice and deficient service of the opposite parties.
- The complainant was a final year MCA student at the relevant time. She wanted a laptop for her MCA final year project. She purchased Lenovo Laptop paying Rs.42,500/- as per Ext A1 tax invoice. The laptop was purchased availing financial assistance from Bajaj Auto Finance and the EMI was being remitted by her sister Aparna and Ext A1 is in the name of her sister. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant has got herself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim reiterating that the laptop showed complaints immediately upon purchase and the problems persisted and the opposite parties could not resolve the issue and they declined to replace the product and thereby the purpose of the laptop could not be materialised and she has suffered intense mental agony and hardship.
- The second opposite party has not turned up to file version. The first and third opposite parties have admitted in the written version that complaints were raised with regard to the laptop by the complainant. According to the first opposite party, they are not liable or responsible for any such defects and it is the second and third opposite parties who are answerable to the complainant. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the document produced and marked by the complainant.
- Admittedly, the product was purchased on 04/09/2020. Complaints arose for the product during the warranty period. The first complaints arose on 11/12/2020 and it related to power issue. The issue was with motherboard and it was replaced and the laptop was delivered back to the complainant on 17/12/2020. Just after two days on 19/12/2020 there was hanging issue. This time also the issue was with the motherboard and it was replaced and the laptop was delivered back to the complainant on 24/12/2020. Again just after two days on 26/12/2020 the laptop showed ‘not powering up’ issue and again the motherboard was changed. Thus within a short span of 4 months of the purchase, the motherboard of the laptop was replaced thrice. There is no dispute on the above aspect. PW1 has given evidence that even thereafter the same problem persisted. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant.
- As per Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ‘defect’ means any fault, imperfection or short coming 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. In the instant case, there is short coming in the standard which is required to be maintained, because even after replacing the motherboard thrice within a short span of 4 months, the problems of the laptop could not be resolved. It is true that there is no technical/expert report to show that the product suffers from any inherent manufacturing defect. But it may be noted that the facts of the case itself speaks that repeated repairs/services were required for the product within a few months of sale. The fact that it required substantial repairs within a short span of time goes on to show that there are inherent defects in the product. The defect 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 on a regular basis. That being so, according to us, the stand of the complainant in insisting for the replacement of the product with a new one is fully justified.
- When a person buys a new laptop, he expects that it would work without any trouble for at least a reasonable period of time. Here the laptop started giving problems soon after purchase and the defects could not be rectified properly by the opposite parties even after the motherboard was replaced thrice. Obviously, the complainant, who is a student, has suffered due to these 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 manufacturer in the matter of replacement of the defective product amount to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service.
- After having expended money for the purchase of the laptop, the complainant was forced to suffer a defective laptop. The complainant’s sister had procured loan from a financial institution to purchase the laptop which was intended for the MCA final year project of the complainant. Due to the defects and deficiencies, the laptop had to be constantly entrusted to the service centre and was forced to continue to pay the EMI without access or use of the laptop. She had to depend upon the laptop of others for completing her project, for which purpose, the laptop was purchased. Undoubtedly, she was put to immense mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice indulged by the opposite parties and 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.
- To sum up, we hold that there is proof of unfair trade practice and deficient service on the part of the opposite parties one and three. 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 purchase price. The complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered. The opposite parties 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable.
- Point No.3: In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC.72/2021 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties 1 and 3 are hereby directed to replace the Lenovo Laptop of the complainant with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect, or in the alternative, refund the purchase price of Rs.42,500/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Five hundred Only) to the complainant, after taking back the laptop.
- 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 hardship suffered.
- No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25thday of August, 2023. Date of Filing: 31-03-2021. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibit for the Complainant : Ext A1 - Tax invoice Exhibits for the Opposite Parties: Nil. Witness for the Complainant PW1 – Abisha.K.M - (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite parties Nil Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER True copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
