BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.56/2014

Dated this the 12^th day of February 2016

G. Balamurugan,                    

23, IV Cross, Mariyal Nagar     

Reddiyarpalayam

Pondicherry – 605 010.

                                       ….     Complainant

Vs.

1.  Regional Manager

     Redington (India) Limited      

     3-B, Villianur Road          

     Natesan Nagar,

     Pondicherry – 605 005.

2. The Regiional Manager

    Redington (India) Limited

    SPL Guindy House

    95, Mount Road, Guindy

    Chennai – 600 032.

  ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A., B.L.,

MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :  Thiru G. Balamurugan, Party in person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY   : Party in person

O R  D  E  R

(Thiru V.V. Steephen, Member)

This is a complaint praying to direct the first Opposite party to discontinue the unfair Trade Practice in Future;  to direct the first Opposite Party to issue a Brand New Laptop and to pay the compensation amount of rs.10,000/- for the financial loss and the waste of time and energy, suffering by the complainant due to the negligence and careless by the Opposite Parties;  to direct the first Opposite Party to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the education loss as well as mental agony, sleeplessness and health problem suffered by the complainant in those 180 days while trying to study (Research – Course work) by some other means on his own;  to direct the first Opposite Party to pay compensation amount of rs.15,000/- towards the travelling expenses and loss of time and energy of the complainant to be bared during the case and to direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant had purchased a Toshiba Laptop Satellite L300, with Serial No. X8720421Q at Dubai during the year 2009 and the same is an out of warranty product.  The complainant had given this product for a paid service with an issue of "Display goes Different Colour while using the charger" to the first Opposite party on 12.08.2013 with work order No. PO/13/00975 and the same was returned to the complainant by the first Opposite Party on 31.08.2013 and collected a sum of Rs.6,799/-.  Within one week, the complainant had the same issue and hence, he returned back to the first Opposite Party and received after two weeks and found multiple issues like  DVD Drive not working, Fan sometimes not running, Display goes different color, RGB Color and not charging.  All the above issues were checked at the first Opposite Party's Office and the first Opposite Party agreed that it is service problem and informed the complainant that will send to Chennai and get repair done with work order No. PO/13/01602 dated 29.10.2013 along with charger adapter.  On 22.11.2013 the complainant was called by the first Opposite Party to collect the laptop and when the complainant tried to connect laptop to the charger, but it was not charging.  Again, it was sent to Chennai for re-service.  On 06.12.2013 the complainant was called for Laptop Service Status, the first Opposite Party replied that "we got the complainant's laptop but it is with same issue".  So again sending it back to Chennai Office.  The complainant had informed to Service Centre people not to sent for service again and again and the complained inform that he is going to file a case at Consumer Court.  Inspite of the complainant's words, one Mr. Gopal from first Opposite Party office had sent that false mail to the complainant and manager stating "As discussed and agreed we are sending the complainant laptop for service to our backend office and revert to the complainant within a week".  The complainant was not aware of this.  The first opposite party had mis-used the complainant name and marked a false mail and had sent for re-service without the complainant's knowledge, where the complainant did not agree at all.  The complainant had sent 46 mails to all the officers and also he had visited the first opposite party's office 15 times and also had made around 50 calls.  Further, the research works were pending without laptop and also the complainant had faced a huge loss and mental stress.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       The reply version of the opposite parties is as follows:

          The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the laptop and hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. neither M/s Toshiba India Pvt Ltd., the manufacturer of the HP Laptops nor the dealer who sold the laptop to the complainant.  The opposite parties are the authorised service provider for laptops manufactured and distributed by M/s Toshiba India Pvt Ltd., and that they are performing repair services as defined by the manufacturer without receiving any consideration from the customers during warranty period.  While rendering services, they are supposed to act as per the terms and conditions defined by the manufacturer and as such, this service provider is no way responsible for quality, functionality or its workmanship of the Laptop manufactured by M.s Toshiba India Pvt. Limited.  If any physical damage found in the product or if the warranty has got expired, the service centre of this opposite party would carry repair service to the laptop mother board subject to customer bear the cost of spare and labour for the services and provide service as confirmed by the manufacturer depending on the condition of the product.   The complainant had lodged the complaint with the manufacturer and the same has forwarded to this opposite party thrice complainant with the problems in the laptop and the laptop was in out of warranty condition and the Service Engineer visited the place of the complainant and diagnosed the problem in the Laptop during every instances.  In the first instance, the Engineer found the problem with VGA section (Display) and LVDS Cable vide work order No. PO/13/00975 and the opposite party brought the laptop to the service centre, replaced the spares and revamped the laptop in good working condition and the complainant taken delivery of the laptop on 31.8.2013.  During second instance vide work order No. PO/13/01560, the Engineer found hardware problem in DVD drive and replaced the DVD drive and retained the laptop for further observations.  However, the complainant not willing to hand over the laptop for observations and other necessary services against the reported problems and taken delivery on 26.10.2013.  During 3^rd instance vide work order NO. PO/13/01602 Engineer found the DVD drive is not working properly and hardware problem.  Though the complainant not allowed the opposite party for observation, they have replaced the DVD drive for the second time and rendered necessary service to the Mother Board of the Laptop as gesture to the customer subsequent to a specific request from the complainant turned the Laptop into good working condition.  This Opposite party appraised the working status of the Laptop to the complainant and requested him to take delivery of the same.  However the complainant has not come forward to collect the laptop for the reasons best known to him but filed the complaint with intention to gain unfair means and for compensation.    The opposite parties stated that the spares of the Laptop got badly damaged because of improper handling by the complainant.  The sole intention of the complainant is to obtain replacement of laptop along with extended warranty and huge compensation for no fault on the service provider by suppressing his negligence.  The claim on replacement of the Laptop along with compensation shall not be sustained against this Service Provider as the consideration of the laptop was not paid to the opposite party and the laptop was purchawsed by the complainant from Dubai which itself is an outside territory of India.   This Opposite scope as service provider is restricted only to enable service to the Laptop in question and they cannot be held responsible for the Laptop quality, functionality and its standards or its workmanship.  The laptop was repaired and kept in good working condition for delivery but the complainant filed the complaint for huge compensation which itself is not sustainable against a service provider.  The opposite parties are not guilty of unfair trade practice.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       On the side of the complainant, the Power of Attorney of  complainant was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties,  one E. Dineshbabu, Accounts Executive of OPs company was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

5.       Points for determination are :

          1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            6. Point No.1:

          The complainant has purchased a Toshiba Laptop Satellite L300 from Dubai in the year 2009 and the complainant gave this Laptop for paid service with the first Opposite Party  on 12.08.2013 and on other subsequent dates for rectification of complaints in the Laptop.  Admittedly, the Laptop was out of warranty period at the time of handing over the Laptop for service with the first Opposite Party.  On perusal of the Ex.C1 to C4, it is evident that the complainant has given the case mentioned Laptop for service with the first OP and that the service charges was received by the first OP.  As against OP No.2, no evidence is produced by the complainant and moreover, no relief is claimed as against the 2^nd OP by the complainant.  In this context, the first OP is considered as service provider and that the complainant availed the said service of the first OP on consideration and hence, the complainant is held to be a consumer as against the first OP as defined in Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act.  This point is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2:

          The complainant submits that the case mentioned Laptop was purchased from Dubai in the year 2009.  And further submits that the Laptop was handed over to 1^st OP for the complaints to be attended on payment of charges on 12.08.2013 and on other subsequent dates of complaints of Laptop.  It is admitted by the complainant that the Laptop was out of warranty period at the time of submitting the Laptop with first OP for service.  Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 are the job sheet dated 12.08.2013 of work order No. PO/13/00975 and service report of the work order No. PO/13/00975 respectively.  The documents marked as exhibits C and C2 are same as that of Ex.R1 (2 pages) produced by OP1.   Ex.C3 is the payment receipt dated 31.08.2013 for the work order (Ex.C1).  Ex.R2 is the customer estimation charge of work order of Ex.C1.  Ex.R3 is the delivery challan for the proof of delivery of the Laptop to the complainant on the completion of service for the service mentioned in Ex.C1.  ex.R4 is the 2^nd work order / customer receipt of complaint work order No. PO/13/01560 on the same Laptop given to the first OP dated 24.10.2013 and Ex.R5 is the proof of delivery to the complainant on the service of the complaints mentioned in Ex.R4.  Ex.C4 and Ex.R6 refers to one and the same document which relates to the customer receipt / 3^rd work order NO. PO/13/01602 for the same complaints referred in the Ex.R4 and Ex.C5 is the delivery challan for the Laptop given to the complainant for the complaints mentioned in the Ex.C4.

            8. On the analysis of the aforementioned exhibits Ex.C1 to C5 and Exs.R1 to R6, it is observed by the Forum that the complaints referred by the complainant in the Laptop recurs and it is very clear and evident that the first OP has not acted upon the complaints diligently to set right the defects perfectly listed by the complainant.  Moreover, during the cross-examination of the RW1 it has been admitted by him that the Laptop will be returned to the complainant after getting it repaired to the complainant in working condition and all the facts clearly proves that the first OP has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as against the complainant. 

          9. It is observed by the Forum that the nature of the first OP is confined only to the service of the Laptop and the scope of responsibility of the first OP towards the manufacture of the case mentioned Laptop purchased by the complainant is not supported by any documentary evidence and hence, the relief claimed by the complainant for the replacement of the Laptop from first OP is unsustainable and the first OP can be held liable only for setting right the defects in the Laptop and for compensation for the deficiency of service.

           10. It is further held the this Forum that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to support the averment of the complainant that he was undergoing research work and had health problem during the relevant period and hence, the relief claimed on the ground of loss of education and health is untenable.

           11. It is further held by this Forum that since no relief is claimed by the complainant as against the second OP and further no evidence is brought on record by the complainant as against the second OP, this Forum is inclined to grant relief to the complainant as against the first OP only for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  This point is answered accordingly.

          12. Point No.3:

In view of the discussions and decisions taken in the aforementioned paras, it is held that the first OP is liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complainant.  The complaint is hereby allowed and the first OP is directed

1. To set right the defects of the Laptop L300 and handover in a perfect working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, due to the negligent act and deficiency in service of the first Opposite Party.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the litigation.

The first Opposite Party is directed to comply with the directions aforesaid within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 12^th day of February 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:

CW1           25.04.2015           Saravanan     

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: 

RW.1          15.07.2015           E. Dineshbabu, Accounts Executive

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER