Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
31st day of October 2022
CC 440/17 filed on 13/07/17
Complainant : Vipin Varghese, S/o Varghese T.K.,
Theethayil House, Velookkara, Kanjirappilly P.O.,
Chalakkudy, Thrissur – 680 721.
(By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Proprietor, Bright Sum Computers, Door No.39/4614,
Peringhat Building, Sreekandath Road, Ravipuram,
Cochin – 16.
2) Proprietor, Dell Authorised Service Centre, 2 A,
2nd Floor, Shanthi Emerald Building,
Cheruparambathu Road, Kadavanthra, Pin – 682 020.
3) Dell India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, 12/1,
12/2A, 13/1A Divyashree Greeens,
Koramangala Road, Challaghattu, HOBLI,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 036.
(OP 1 Ex-parte)
(OP 2 & 3 By Advs. Paul Puthur & Joju Kynadi,
Thrissur)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant on 08/09/2015, purchased a laptop (Dell Inspiron) from the 1st opposite party, paying a sum of Rs.31,800/- vide their Invoice No.1397. The laptop is claimed to have a warranty for 3 years. Statedly, the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the laptop in question and the 2nd opposite party is its authorised service centre. During the subsistence of the warranty itself, the laptop reportedly exhibited faults relating to its key board, which were given rectified by the 2nd opposite party. Again the laptop is alleged to have become faulty with respect to its key board as well as touch screen and was again entrusted with the 2nd opposite party. Statedly, the laptop in question is still with the 2nd opposite party. The complainant claims to have lost confidence in the product as the same exhibited grave defects in the initial days of its purchase itself and alleges the sale of a defective and substandard product on the part of the opposite parties. A lawyer notice issued by the complainant, stateldy elicited no result. The laptop in question is alleged to have become faulty within the district of Thrissur and hence the complaint before the Commission. The complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the purchase price of the laptop, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
The Commission issued notice to all the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party failed to enter appearance or to file their version before the Commission, in spite of their having received the Commission’s Notice to that effect. Hence the proceedings against the 1st opposite party were set ex-parte. The 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties contested the complaint.
3) Version of the 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties (Contesting opposite parties) :
The complainant’s purchase of the laptop in question manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, is not denied by the contesting opposite parties. They also admitted its warranty for a period of 3 years valid till 01/07/18. It is also admitted that the laptop in question was brought to the 2nd opposite party on 22/08/16, with reported complaints relating to its key board. The laptop was statedly returned to the complainant on 02/09/16, the defects reported having been rectified by the 2nd opposite party by part-replacement. They also admit that the laptop was again brought to the 2nd opposite party on 09/02/17 with reported faults relating to its touch screen, USB and key board. They claim that the touch screen & USB related issues were corrected through an operating system reinstallation and that relating to key board rectified through part replacement, but the opposite parties aver that the complainant declined to collect back the laptop in question, despite repeated calls to that effect. They also contend that the lawyer notice issued by the complainant was replied by an email dtd. 04/04/17. It is also their stance that they are not obliged to refund or replace the laptop for a minor issue like that relating to a key board. Hence, the 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties denied any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part.
4) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. P1 to P4, apart from affidavit and notes of arguments. The 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties produced no documents on their part, but version, affidavit and notes of argument. Proceedings against the 1st opposite party being ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
5) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has delved in to the facts and evidence of the case. Ext.P1 is the Retail Invoice No.1397 dtd. 08/09/15 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complaint. Ext. P2 (SP) is a copy of the SDAR Report. Ext. P3 is copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. Ext. P4 series (2 Nos.) comprise Postal Acknowledgement cards. The veracity of no documents has been disputed.
6) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether there is any manufacturing defect ? Or whether the act of
the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade practice or
whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation
from the part of the opposite parties ? If so, its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
7) Point No.(i)
Admittedly, the laptop in question initially exhibited faulty performance with respect to its key board which was rectified by the 2nd opposite party by part replacement. Thereafter the laptop again went faulty with respect to its touch screen, USB & Key Board, which is also admitted by the 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties. It is noteworthy that the fault relating to key board was exhibited recurrently, all the faults having been shown in less than 17 months of its purchase. The opposite parties’ averment that they are not obliged to refund or replace the product for minor problems as reported by the complainant, does not appear tenable as what matters is the usefulness of a product that is purchased for a handsome sum of Rs.31,800/-, and not the nature of the faults it exhibited. That the defects may not be major ones, but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new laptop. In our view, recurring faults exhibited by the laptop, that too in less than 1.5 years of its purchase, will go to prove that it suffered manufacturing defects. The sale of a defective laptop to a consumer constitutes an unfair trade practice. The opposite parties claim to have rectified the reported defects of the laptop and repeatedly requested the complainant over phone but in vain, to collect the laptop back from them. In its capacity as service centre of the opposite party manufacturer, it was the 2nd opposite party’s bounden and moral duty to officially inform the complainant of their having accomplished the requisite repairs, through proper means of communication such as email, letter etc. Though the 2nd & the 3rd opposite parties baldly claim to have intimated the consumer of the matter, they have hardly produced any evidence at all in this regard. In the absence of any cogent evidence to this effect, the opposite parties miserably failed to substantiate their contentions in this regard and we are inclined to believe the contrary. The opposite parties’ failure to productively repair the laptop in question, constitutes deficiency in service on their part, as well.
Likewise, the opposite parties’ claim of having replied by email to the Ext. P3 lawyer notice, does also remain hardly validated by any cogent evidence.
8) Point (ii) & (iii) :
A person who purchases a laptop at a price of Rs.31,800/-, would not be satisfied, if it recurrently exhibits trouble, especially in much less than a score months of its purchase. In the case at hand, the laptop in question admittedly remains still with the 2nd opposite party. The complainant obviously had suffered a lot of inconvenience, agony and hardship - both mental and physical, consequent to the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get a refund of the purchase price of the laptop i.e. Rs.31,800/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience, agony and hardship he underwent, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to
- refund to the complainant the invoice price of the lap top i.e. Rs.31,800/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand and eight hundred only),
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for the inconvenience, agony and hardship, he underwent and
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite party shall comply with the above direction within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 31st day of October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Retail Invoice No.1397 dtd. 08/09/15 issued by the 1st opposite
party in favour of the complaint.
Ext. P2 (SP) copy of the SDAR Report.
Ext. P3 copy of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant.
Ext. P4 series (2 Nos.) comprise Postal Acknowledgement cards
Id/- Member
