IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 271/2018 (filed on 28/12/2018)
Petitioner : V.P. Suresh,
Valliyankal House,
Anicaud P.O.
Kottayam – 686503.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Proprietor,
Oxygen, S.H.M. P.O.
Nagampadam, Kottayam.
(Adv. Arathi Karjet, Adv. Denu
Joseph and Adv. Neethu Reghukumar)
2) Managing Director,
Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.
Gurgaon Office,
3rd Floor, building No. 10,
Tower B. DLF Cyber City Phase -2,
Gurgaon – Haryana – 122022.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Toshiba Sat S50 Ax0010 lap top which is a Core I 5 generation laptop from the first opposite for rs. 42950 on 20-9-2013. At the time of purchase the opposite parties offered guaranty for one year. In addition to that the complainant had purchased one year extra warranty for the lap top. After three months from the date of purchase the lap top showed the complaint of switching off the screen and when the lap top was entrusted for curing defect to the opposite parties it was given back to the complainant only after 6 months . But the devices started to show the same complaints within 15 days and as directed by the opposite parties the same was entrusted to the service center at Kanjikkuzhy for rectify the defect. The lap top is returned after four months without rectifying the defect. When the same was intimated to the Manager of the opposite party he informed that that was due to complaint of battery and received Rs. 56000 as the charge for rectifying the same. This time also the device was returned by the opposite party only after three months with an extra warranty for three months. The device showed the same complaint within a week and the same was entrusted with the first opposite party for rectifying the defect . This time the first opposite party gave another lap top for use and the same was returned to them after one year. Though the complainant had purchased the lap top from the opposite parties for the educational purpose of his daughter he cannot accomplish his wish due to the defect of the device and suffered much mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice from the Commission opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed separate version.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had purchased Toshiba SAT S50 lap top on 20-9-2013 which is having one year warranty and in addition that one year warranty is also provided by the first opposite party. The last service bill for an amount of Rs. 56,00 is dated 11-5-2016 and the complaint is filed on 28-12-2018. Hence the complaint is bad by limitation. The allegation that the device showed complaints after three months from the date of purchase and the product was returned after six months is false. The averment that the lap top showed repeated complaints within 15 days of delivery after curing the defect is also
false. The complainant had not raised any complaint within the period of warranty or immediately after expiry of warranty or extended warranty. The complainant had approached the first opposite party with the issue of battery back after the expiry of warranty and extended warranty on substantial use of the lap top. The battery of the device can deteriorate in performance due to various reasons including its use for a particular period, misuse of the product etc. In the instance case since the warranty was over the battery was replaced on a charged basis. The allegation that the lap top again showed complaints within a week and was given to the first opposite party and the first opposite party had given a spare computer to him is false. After 11-5-2016 the complainant had not approached the first opposite party. First opposite party is merely conducting the sale of various products including computers, mobile phone etc. of various manufacturers on a meager profit. If any defect found with the product sold by the first opposite party during the period of warranty offered by the manufacturer, the products will be sent to the authorized service center of the respective manufacturer and assist the customers to get the product serviced. Complaint filed by the complainant is only on an experimental basis for availing unlawful gain.
Second opposite party filed version contending as follows:
The complainant is bad by limitation and not maintainable. The second opposite arty is a company dealing with electronics goods and services having decades of reputed services and keeping impeccable standards of quality of goods keeping in mind the international standards. The defect was caused solely due to the rash and negligent use by the complainant. The second opposite party had given one year warranty for the product and the second opposite party cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. Second opposite party is not liable to provide service under care pack which has been issued by the first opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. The second opposite parties further denied all the allegations in the complaint.
Evidence of this case consist of proof affidavit of the complainant and Exhibit A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant and proof affidavit of the first opposite party. No evidence is adduced by the second opposite party.
On an evaluation of the complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Point number 1
It is admitted by both the parties that complainant purchased a Toshiba Sat S50 Ax0010 lap top which is a Core I 5 generation laptop from the first opposite party for Rs. 42950 on 20-92013.Exhibit A3 is the retail invoice dated 20-9-2013 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. It is proved by Exhibit A4 that the complainant had purchased Care Pack by which an assurance was given by the first opposite party for a better service support in issues related to the product and the same was valid from the period of 20-9-2014 to 19-9-2015. The specific case of the complainant is that the laptop became defective within 3 months from the date of purchase, which was within the warranty period offered by the manufacturer. The complainant avers that though the device has became defective several times and entrusted to the opposite parties for cure the defect the device has been returned by the opposite parties after a long time. According to the first opposite party last service bill for an amount of Rs. 56,00 is dated 11-5-2016 and the complaint is filed on 28-12-2018. . The opposite parties contended that the complaint is bad by limitation and not maintainable. Complainant has deposed in the affidavit that on 11-05-2016 the device became defective and rectified by the first opposite party. But the device showed the same complaint within one week and again entrusted to the first opposite party for rectifying the same but it was not returned even after one year. When the complainant approached the first opposite party for the lap top the first opposite party has provided a spare lap top to him. On going through Exhibit A5 we can see that on 26-5-2018 the opposite party has replaced a stand by lap top of Acer x 55 2c to the complainant against Toshiba SAT S50 Ax0010 . Exhibit A6 proves that the lap top Acer x 55 2c was entrusted to the first opposite party by the complainant on 14-6-2018 with a complaint as not switching on the same. On going through the above discussed evidence we can see that though the first opposite party received the Toshiba SAT S50 Ax0010 lap top for curing the defect and provided a stand by lap top to the complainant, the first opposite party did not return the Toshiba SAT S50 Ax0010 lap top which was entrusted to them for curing the defect and the stand by lap top which was provided by the first opposite party also became defective and entrusted to them to rectifying the same. Eventhough the cause of action has been firstly arose on 26-5-2018 it continues and further arose on 14-6-2018 the date on which the stand by lap top was entrusted to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect. The opposite parties have not challenged the genuinty of Exhibit A6 and has no case that they had rectified the defect of the Toshiba SAT S50 Ax0010 lap top and returned the same to the complainant.
Thus we are of the opinion that the complaint is filed within the time and the contention that the complaint is bad by limitation is devoid of any merit. Hence point number one is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point number 2 and 3
As discussed earlier there is no dispute on the fact that the complainant has a Toshiba SAT S50 Ax0010 lap top which is a Core I 5 generation laptop from the first opposite party which is manufactured by the second opposite party for Rs. 42950 on 20-9-2013. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the device was entrusted to the first opposite party on 11-5-2016 for rectifying the defects suffered by the same and it was after the expiry of warranty provided by the manufacturer and the Care Pack by which an assurance given by the first opposite party for a better service support in issues related to the product. It is proved by the Exhbibit A2 that the first opposite party has levied Rs.5600 from the complainant as the price for Battery and service charges. On perusal of Exhibit A2 we can see an endorsement on it as’3 months Warranty”. Though the complainant deposed in the proof affidavit that the device showed the same
complaint within a week and the same was entrusted with the first opposite party for rectifying the defect he did not adduce any evidence on this respect. Exhibit A5 proves on 26-5-2018 the opposite party has replaced a stand by lap top of Acer x 55 2c to the complainant against Toshiba S50 Ax0010. On a reading of exhibit A5 we can see that the device has been entrusted to the first opposite party with a complaint of “not powering on”. According to the complainant the stand by lap top which was given by the first opposite party became defective within one month. Exhibit A6 proves that the lap top Acer x 55 2c was entrusted to the first opposite party by the complainant on 14-6-2018 with a complaint as not switching on the same. The first opposite party deposed that the issues related to the battery of the lap top was rectified on 11-5-2016. Though the opposite party contended that the lap top again showed complaints within a week and was given to the first opposite party and the first opposite party had given a spare computer to him is false and after 11-5-2016 the complainant had not approached the first opposite party, they did not challenge the genuinity of Exhibit A5 and A6 neither in version nor in their affidavit. The first opposite party has no case as Exhibit A5 and A6 forged documents. The first opposite party has not given any explanation about Exhibit A5 and A6 documents which are issued by them to the complainant. In the absence of any contrary evidence we cannot discard the recitals in Exhibit A5 and A6. In the light of above discussed evidence we can arrive at the conclusion that the first opposite party has failed to cure the defect of Toshiba SAT 550 Ax0010 lap top and return the same , which was entrusted to them by the complainant. Thus we are of the opinion that the above said failure of the first opposite party is imperfection and inadequacy in service and amounts to deficiency in service.
It is evident that the device became defective and entrusted to the first opposite party for rectifying the defect on 26-5-2018 ie. after 5 years of purchase. Though the complainant pleaded for replacing the lap top he failed to adduce any evidence that the device has been suffering inherent manufacturing defect. Considering all these circumstances and available evidence on record we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the first opposite party to cure the defect of Toshiba Sat 550 Ax0010 lap top free of cost in perfect working condition and deliver the same to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
- We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay Rs. 7500/- as compensation to the complainant within30 days from the receipt of this order.
- We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of September, 2020
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Copy of cash receipt dtd.20/09/2013 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 : Copy of cash receipt dtd.11/05/2016 issued by 1st opposite party
A3 : Invoice No.OXYKTM/13-14/B:5617 SRS.20/09/2013
A4 : CARE PACK NO.OXKTM/09/4662L dtd.14/10/2013 by 1st op.
A5 : Copy of goods outward note dtd.26/05/18 by 1st opposite party
A6 : Copy of goods inward note dtd.14/06/18 by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
