BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 205/2007 Filed on 01.10.2007

Dated : 16.08.2011

Complainant :

Preetha Premjith, Mavila House, Pulimkudi, Azhimala Road, Mulloor P,O, Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 521.

(By adv. Narayan. R)

Opposite parties :

1. Managing Director, Acer India Pvt. Ltd., I Floor, George Thangiah Complex, 80 feet Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560 075.

   (By adv. G.S. Kalkura)

    

2. Managing Director, Acermall, LR Infotech Systems, LR Plaza, Kaithamukku, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

    

3. Sourav Ganguly, Manager Customer Support, Acer India (Pvt) Ltd., No. 873, 2^nd Floor, 80 feet Road, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560 075.

    

This O.P having been heard on 25.06.2011, the Forum on 16.08.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The grievance of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased an Acer notebook computer model Travel Mate NLMI 2413 from the 2^nd opposite party on 02.05.2006 and that from the first week of its purchase the monitor showed display complaints and the same was informed to the 2^nd opposite party and the same was returned after service after 2 weeks. But after one week the system developed over heating and when the complainant informed the same to the opposite party she was told to remove the battery soon in order to avoid danger and she was advised by the dealer to give the notebook for service. After 2 or 3 weeks they returned the machine saying that it was in good condition. The notebook worked hardly for a month and it again developed display complaint. The machine was again repaired and returned, but the same showed display complaints again and that the machine was not properly fitted after examination by the service engineer. Again the same was given for service and when the complainant got the computer back the LCD monitor was completely scratched. The complainant denied taking back the machine. They assured her that they would replace the monitor, motherboard and battery since all parts got overheated, but they changed only the monitor and returned the machine making the complainant believe that the machine is in good condition. In the meantime complainant lost several data regarding her PhD programme. Now the monitor switches off while working. Due to the complaints in the note book the complainant had to suffer a lot and she could not submit her thesis due to the faulty notebook. Immediately after the warranty period was over, the DVD Combo Drive was also dead so she was unable to give input or take a CD written with data from the machine. Complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties have given her a machine with manufacturing defect. Hence this complaint.

2^nd opposite party remains exparte. 1^st opposite party has filed version for and on behalf of 3^rd opposite party also, but 3^rd opposite party remains exparte. In the version filed by 1^st opposite party they contend as follows: It is true the complainant had purchased the machine on 02.05.2006. The warranty was for a period of one year. There is no manufacturing defect at all. There is no deficiency in service also in any service rendered by the opposite parties. A complaint regarding flickering of the monitor was reported on 07.11.2006. Mr. Jackson service engineer of the opposite party made a personal visit to the place of the complainant on 15.11.2006 and it was found that the machine was functioning without problem. That the notebook had been dropped and the damage was physical and complainant was attempting to get the parts replaced free of cost by citing an earlier problem and was attempting to get over the aspect of physical damage caused due to dropping the machine. It was also informed to the complainant that since notebook was dropped, broken parts cannot be replaced on warranty. It is relevant to notice that there was no complaint at all till the DVD problem was reported on 9^th month of 2007. All the other allegations raised in the complaint are denied. Complainant was trying to take advantage of services of opposite party by making allegations in order to obtain rectification free of cost to which opposite party was not amenable. The averment that the machine developed problems immediately after one week is denied. It is denied that there was any promise to offer 3 years free service to overcome warranty period. The problem with DVD Combo drive is also out of warranty period. No warranty is being offered beyond a period of one year as being a very flimsy electronic item the DVD drive can develop problems in any machine depending on usage. As regards the averment that complainant had contacted the service technician and that the machine was roughly handled by the service personnel are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. In any view of the matter, the machine was in no manner wrongly handled as alleged. It is denied that there is any cheating or defects attributable to manufacturing defect at all. The defects alleged are purely to suit the complainant's claims. The allegation that the complainant suffered damage on account of the defect in the machine is all incorrect and is stoutly denied. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P7 on her side. An expert commissioner has been appointed by this Forum to ascertain the condition of the laptop in dispute. The commissioner has been examined as CW1 and his report has been marked as Ext. C1. From the side of the opposite parties DW1 has been examined and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the laptop in dispute suffer from manufacturing defects?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

    

Points (i) to (iii):- The purchase of the computer is admitted. As per Ext. P1 the date of purchase is 02.05.2006. According to the complainant the laptop in dispute showed display problem from the first week of its purchase and that she had given the same for service to the 2^nd opposite party. As per Ext. P4 the complainant has received the laptop with 2 CDs and as per Ext. D2 dated 20.11.2006 it has been stated by the complainant that so far the system is working without problem and she will inform if there is any problem in future. From this Ext. D2 it can be inferred that the system had some problem before the said date and as per the version of the opposite parties they have also admitted that the complaint regarding the flickering of the monitor was reported on 07.11.2006 and that the machine was functioning without problem. It has been further stated in the version that the complainant had raised the grievance on 26.12.2006 stating that the monitor is flickering and accordingly the machine was sent to the opposite party at Kochi and the VGA Cable was replaced which according to the opposite parties is only an inexpensive procedure. From this itself it could be seen that the laptop purchased by the complainant had shown defects from the very inception of its purchase. The other allegation of the complainant is that when the machine was given for repairing the complainant received the machine from LR Infotech with completely scratched LCD monitor and that she had denied to accept the same. But according to the complainant though the opposite party assured to replace the monitor, motherboard and battery, they changed only the monitor and returned the machine making the complainant believe that the machine is in good condition. But the opposite party has contended that the notebook had been dropped and the damage has been caused due to the dropping of the machine by the complainant and there was no complaint at all till the DVD problem was reported on 9^th month of 2007. Opposite parties have further denied and contended that the opposite parties have never practiced fraud and further contended that the DVD did not have any defects during the first year itself and that there is no manufacturing defect and the problem if any had developed only on account of usage over a period of time and for that reason no manufacturer of DVD offers warranty over a period of one year and that there is no assurance of retention of data as the same is subject to usage and the conditions to which the system are exposed and that the complainant had suffered any loss in submitting thesis in PhD either by way of delay or loss of data is denied. Complainant during cross examination was asked “നിങ്ങള്‍ നന്നാക്കാന്‍ കൊടുത്ത സാധനം തിരികെ വാങ്ങുന്പോള്‍ അസാധാരണമായി എന്തെങ്കിലും കണ്ടാല്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുമല്ലോ? (Q) വലിയ കേടുപാടുകളാണെങ്കിലേ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കാറുള്ളൂ (A) അപ്പോള്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ അങ്ങനെ തിരികെ machine വാങ്ങുന്പോള്‍ വലിയ കേടുപാടുകള്‍ കണ്ടിട്ടില്ലായിരുന്നു (Q) പെട്ടെന്ന് നോക്കിയപ്പോള്‍ കേടുപാടുകള്‍ ഒന്നും ഇല്ലായിരുന്നു (A)”. So if the laptop had scratches the complainant had sufficient time to deny the acceptance of the same and raised for objection. But she has not raised any objection regarding the scratches at the time of accepting the same. From this it can be presumed that she has accepted the laptop with scratches knowingly without any objection.

Now the commission report has to be looked into. The commissioner has reported that the scratches and physical damages in the case of the laptop is due to mishandling of the system. The case of the laptop is found broken in some places and that is due to opening of the system by unskilled technicians. The non-working of the laptop is due to the fault of the AC adapter. Replacing the adapter or changing the cable will resolve the problem. The DVD drive is not working. The complaint is a mechanical one and since the opposite party has stated that no internal service of the DVD is done by them, the drive is to be replaced. The battery condition may be due to the AC adapter problem. By replacing the adapter this problem will be solved. The slow recharging may be due to battery failure because of aging. Then it is to be replaced. Finally the commissioner has concluded that breakage shows that a lapse has been shown from the part of the service technician during the maintenance of the system and that the LCD as well as the video cable has been replaced within three months of purchase and the same is due to some fault that might have been happened at the time of manufacturing the system. Commissioner has been cross examined by the opposite parties and the commissioner has stated that he did not find any unusual heat in the laptop while examining. The opposite party's counsel had put a specific question that the scratches in the laptop are due to normal use, for which the commissioner has deposed that it is not due to normal use and that due to extensive use the colour need not get faded but it depends on the usage of the person and if the hands are wet also such defects can be seen. The commissioner has stated that the DVD drive is not working. According to the commissioner normally a laptop can be used for about 8 years. Further the commissioner has deposed that the defects in the computer has occurred due to the careless usage by the service centre or the complainant before 05.06.2009. Anyway it has been established that the laptop became defective from the very beginning itself and the commissioner has stated that the battery was in discharged condition since there was no charge as there was no power chord. While examining, the commissioner has detailed the physical condition (exterior) at the time of inspection that scratches all around the body, a breakage/bend in the right hand corner near the DVD drive, the AC adapter cable is broken, the LCD case is not properly fit, keyboard case (upper part) is not firmly fit and three of the screws in the system case is missing. The physical condition (interior) at the time of inspection is that the lower portion of the LCD panel is broken in the inside portion. The condition of the system in the technical point of view is that presently the system is not working, the AC adapter is not working, the DVD drive is not working, the battery is completely discharged, the system board is working and battery charging is done slowly and is not proper. Taking the above into consideration we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the complaint and if really the equipment did not have any problem there was no need for the complainant to approach the opposite party within a short span of its purchase. Merely because she has acknowledged the receipt of the computer is not enough to conclude that she was satisfied with the work done as it does not mean that the defects were rectified, since the machine was not subject to use. The defects can be noticed only after using the same by the complainant. Further if repeated servicing and repairing of the laptop failed in resolving the problems faced by the complainant, it points to the existence of some serious defects. Anyway in this case the complainant could not use the said laptop defect free from the first week of its purchase. Considering all the above facts we find that the machine supplied to the complainant suffers from manufacturing defect and the service personnels of the opposite party have handled the laptop carelessly and thereby causing damage to the laptop resulting to deficiency in service on their part. Hence we find that the replacement of the laptop by the same model or refund of the cost of the laptop along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and a cost of Rs. 3,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the laptop with a defect free new one of the same model or refund the cost of the computer along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- as costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of August 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 205/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Preetha Premjith

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of tax invoice No. 74 dated 02.05.2006

P2 - Copy of acknowledgement card

P3 - Copy of the letter dated 12.08.2007 issued by the complainant.

P4 - Copy of the receipt No. 2189.

P5 - Copy of e-mail dated 24.08.2007.

P6 - Warranty book

P7 - User's Guide.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Jackson T.J

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Warranty book

D2 - Copy of e-mail dated 20.11.2006

V COURT EXHIBIT :

CW1 - Manoj

C1 - Commission Report

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb