Hewlett Packward

adminadmin Administrator
edited August 2014 in Computer
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]T.B. Murali[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]S/o. T.A. Bhavadasan[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Thekkumpurath House[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Erimayur[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Alathur[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Palakkad. - Complainant[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Adv.C.B. Anand ) [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]V/s[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]1. Vipin.R [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]M/s. Denz Computers[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Geethanjali Building Opposite[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Chandranagar Post Office[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Palakkad.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Adv. P. Sreeprakash)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]2. Hewlett Packward India Sales Private Ltd[/FONT]
“[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Rubiyan”, Ist Floor[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]41/1476, Arangath Road[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Near Veekshanam Press[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Ernakulam[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Kochi – 682 018[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Adv. P.G. Sreejith & G. Jayachandran)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]3. Hewlett Packward India Sales Private Ltd, Manufacturing[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]92, Industrial Suburb II Stage[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Yeshwanthpur[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Bangalore -560 022 - Opposite Parties[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Adv. P.G. Sreejith, G. Jayachandran)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]O R D E R[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]By Smt. H. Seena, President[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Brief facts of the complaint is as follows.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Complainant purchased a H P Pavilion Laptop computer for his daughter from Ist Opposite Party on 26/06/2007 for Rs.51,050/-. On the next day itself, the complainant noted a white mark appearing on the screen when it was put to use. Thereafter complainant took the laptop to the Ist Opposite party. Ist Opposite party noticed the white mark on the screen. But the Ist Opposite party tried to console the complainant stating that there is nothing wrong with the system. Later complainant issued lawyer notice on July 2007 to the Ist Opposite party stating his grievance. But [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]- 2 -[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]the Ist Opposite party sent reply stating that they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect. One year warranty is also provided for the system. According to the complainant laptop suffer from manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite parties to replace the Laptop with a new one or refund the price of the same with 12% interest from 26/06/2007 till the date of realization and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]2. Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. According to Ist Opposite party it is incorrect to state that the white dot was noticed by the complainant only on 27/06/2007. Complainant was aware of the white dot on the date of purchase itself. The expert opinion of the Commissioner is totally wrong and is without any basis. Complainant has never contacted Ist Opposite party for replacement of the laptop. If at all there is any manufacturing defect in the Laptop, 1st Opposite party is not responsible and it is only the manufacturer who is responsible for the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]According to Opposite parties 2 and 3, they are not aware of the transactions between the complainant and 1st opposite party. According to them the non production of bill and warranty card by the complainant to prove the date of sale and year of warranty and also to assure that the product is manufactured by the 3rd and 2nd opposite parties absolve the liability of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The defects in the Laptop can occur due to fungus infection, mishandling of the equipment and inexperienced handling of the equipments and several other external factors other than manufacturing defect. Opposite parties are a multinational company having world wide reputation. Each product is tested before sending for distribution. Hence there is no manufacturing defect and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A3 series marked. Commissioner filed report and is marked Exhibit C1. Opposite parties neither filed affidavit nor any documents in support of their contentions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]4. Now the issues for consideration are:[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the goods supplied?[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Point 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Case of the complainant is that on the very next day of purchase of the Laptop itself, he noted a white mark on the screen and immediately it was informed to the 1st opposite party. Ist Oppostie [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]- 3 -[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]party took no steps to settle his grievance. The purchase of the laptop is admitted by Ist Opposite [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]party and is also evident from Exhibit A1 and A2. As per the contention of the Ist Opposite party, complainant has purchased the same after noting the white dot on the date of purchase itself. Contention of Ist Opposite party seems to be unreasonable. No prudent man will buy a laptop knowing its defects and that too for the educational purpose of his daughter. Dealer is bound to deliver defect free goods to the consumer. Dealer cannot escape liability stating its upon the manufacturer.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]According to 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties, complainant has not produced bill and warranty card to prove his case. The contention is not true. Complainant has produced the bill and is marked as Exhibit A2. Further photocopy of the warranty card is also produced along with the complaint. Further contention is that the defect noted need not be a manufacturing defect. The same can occur due to fungus infection, mishandling and other external factors. Complainant has taken an expert commission where in the commissioner has specifically stated that laptop verified suffers from patent manufacturing defect and the defect is incurable. Commission report is marked as Exhibit C1.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the laptop supplied to the complainant suffers from patent manufacturing defects and all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,050/- being the price of the laptop together with 12% interest from the date of purchase to the date of complaint and to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of communication of order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.[/FONT]

Comments

  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Kuldeep Kaur wife of Sh. Pritpal Singh, resident of 1471, Krishana Nagar, Ludhiana-141001.

    Vs.

    1. M/s Micro Solutions, SCO & Premium Apartments Pakhowal Road, Opp. Baba Ishar Singh Market, Ludhiana.

    2. M/s Dee Kay Electrovision (Sony World) Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana-141001

    3. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Tower-D 6th Floor, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road Gurgaon-122 002 (Haryana)

    4. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31 Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044


    1. In this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, main grouse of the complainant is against opposite party no.1 M/s Micro Solutions from whom had purchased CPU (computer) of HP Brand, manufactured by opposite party no.3.

    2. She had earlier purchased 26” LCD TV from M/s Dee Kay Electrovision-OP No.2 vide bill no.1827 dated 24.9.2007 There was provision in that TV for installation of PC (Computer) and by that mode screen of the TV could have been used as monitor for computer. The TV is running satisfactory upto date. Subsequently on 14.4.2008, she purchased for Rs. 25,250/- vide bill no.50 dated 14.4.08 from opposite party no.1, a computer of HP Brand. While purchasing the PC, had made clear to opposite party no.1 that it should work on 26” LCD TV of Soni Brand. She was assured by opposite party no.1 that it would work on TV. On the fist day, representative of opposite party no.1 came for installation of the PC and asked for VGA cable, which was neither provided by opposite party no.1 nor by opposite party no.3. Hence, the said cable was purchased from the market. Representative of opposite party no.1 installed the PC connecting the TV. Though it started working, but quality of reception was poor causing strain on eyes.

    To remove the problem, representative of opposite party no.1 suggested use of good quality cable. Then good quality VGA cable with filters was purchased but it failed to respond. Then TV dealer-OP No.3 was contacted whose technician visited the premises and found no fault in the TV. TV worked on other computer of HCL Company and Soni Laptop. Consequently, opposite party no.1 was requested to install VGA cable with filter, but they failed to do so and claimed that their CPU has no fault and opposite party no.3 also says that the TV has also no fault. After repeated complaints of the complainant, opposite party no.1 installed a graphic card in the PC, which improved the quality.

    VGA cable started giving good quality reception . But opposite party no.1 demanded Rs.4200/- as cost of graphic card which she refused to pay and reminded opposite party no.1 that at the time of purchase of PC, had told her that it should work on 26” LCD TV. On refusal to pay Rs.4200/-, he withdrew the graphic card from the PC. Hence, computer is running simply on VGA cable and reception quality is poor. Therefore, the complainant has sought rectification of fault of poor quality reception and to pay her compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

    3. Opposite party no.1 in reply claimed that the complaint against them is not maintainable and the complainant has concealed the material facts. They admitted purchase of computer by the complainant from them on 14.4.08 and that they have been selling computers and its parts on commission of HP Brand computers. While selling computer, she was showed various models of HP LCD TV offered by HP Company. Complainant was not assured that PC would work on 26” LCD TV of Sony Brand. There was no defect in their PC. Complainant was advised at the time of purchasing PC, to purchase HP LCD monitor because primary function of LCD TV is to display TV reception and is meant for viewing from a distance. Due to poor resolution, the quality of image on LCD TV may not be as good as that on LCD Monitor.

    It was made clear, if she want to run the PC on other company’s LCD TV, then is to install the graphic card for good response, for which require to pay extra charges for graphic card. No assurance was given that the computer would work on 26” LCD TV. Poor reception in the TV of the complainant was due to lower quality cable and there was no fault in the PC. When good quality cable was purchased from the open market, response in quality of the picture was good. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

    4. Opposite party no.3, manufacturer of the computer have denied allegations of the complainant. They claimed that there company is customer friendly company and they have fool proof complaint redressal department having 24 hours toll free customer care centre. From the date of purchase of the computer, three complaints were lodged by the complainant. First on 18.4.08 qua connecting the CPU with LCD TV of Sony Brand and that colours were getting defragged. Then complainant was directed to contact service centre as there was no defect in the CPU. Second complaint was lodged on 28.4.2008 and was referred to service centre and lastly on 5.6.08 complaint was made regarding unclear resolution in the TV. That has nothing to do with their computer. Their computer has no defect or problem. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

    5. Complaint against opposite parties no.2 & 4 not admitted.

    6. In order to prove their respective contentions, parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

    7. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and the material on record.

    8. It is apparent from own admission of the complainant in the complaint that Sony LCD TV purchased from opposite party no.2 is having no defect. Same is her case about the CPU (computer) purchased on 14.4.08 from opposite party no.1. As such, as far as products purchased by the complainant, manufactured either by opposite party no.3 or opposite party no.4 are concerned, there is no allegation of manufacturing defect therein.

    9. Complainant had purchased the PC(computer) without monitor from opposite party no.1, because she intended to utilize screen of LCD TV purchased from opposite party no.2. When the PC with lead of VGA cable was connected with LCD TC, computer as well as TV functioned, though quality of reception was poor. After putting on graphic card in the PC (computer), VGA cable started responding and it showed good quality reception. Graphic card is not part and parcel of PC(computer) nor it is component of TV. It is a separate part, which was required by the complainant to convert screen of LCD TV as monitor of the computer. Without graphic card, reception was not of high quality and was poor. But with the use of graphic card, quality became proper.

    So, it means there was no defect in the product sold by opposite party no.1 or 3 to the complainant. They can not be termed of suppressing material information from the consumer by selling their product. If the complainant wants to use screen of the LCD TV as monitor, she naturally would have to purchase an extra component at her own cost. She could not seek such component at the expenses of the dealer. Neither any component such as graphic card was purchased by the complainant and had she purchased and found the same to be defective, then opposite parties would have been liable for selling inferior quality component to the complainant.

    10. In these circumstances we fail to understand how the opposite parties were deficient in rendering their services to the complainant. However, on part of complainant argued that the PC(computer) was purchased with clear narrations with opposite party no.1 that it would be used for connecting with LCD TV of Soni Brand. When the TV and computer were connected with VGA cable, both functioned, but reception was poor. But for such poor reception, we can not blame any of them. Therefore, we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties nor they can be blamed of giving false assurances to her. Hence, finding no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Chandermani Sharma son of Sh. Apurba Pandit presently Secretary Radha Sawami Satsang Beas , Centre Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

    …Complainant

    V/S



    1. M/S Greatway Enterprises 197/6 Samkhetar Bazar Mandi Town , District Mandi, H.P. through its Proprietor

    2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd 92 Industrial Suburb Area Yashwantpur Bangluru Karnatka 560022 through its Managing Director

    ..Opposite parties





    ORDER.

    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The complainant is secretary of complainant’s Society. The complainant averred that on 3-2-2007, he purchased H.P. Lazer Jet M 1005 MPP Printer from the opposite party vide cash/ memo No.0029 for the purpose of official use by paying Rs.12501/-. That soon after the purchase of the aforesaid printer , it started giving problem from the very first day and only after photostatting about 600 copies , it started giving problems and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party made minor repair and thereafter it again started giving problems just after one month of its repair. The opposite party No.1 was again notified of the defect and it again sent their Engineer who had removed the fault. Thereafter the printer again started creating problems after one and a half month . The complainant requested the opposite party many times to either repair the printer or to replace the same because there was inherent defect in the printer but of no avail . The complainant averred that he had filed a complaint in this regard on 30-7-2007 with the opposite party, but the opposite party made lame excuses and till date is lingering on the matter .


    The complainant further alleged that on 4-8-2008 he again gave another written complaint to it regarding the defect in the printer but in vain which act on the part of the opposite party falls under unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. During the pendency of the complaint the complainant has moved an application for impleading the manufacture as opposite party which was allowed on 17-2-2009 and manufacturer was impleaded as opposite party No.2.With these allegations , the complainant had sought direction to the opposite parties either to replace the printer with new one or to refund Rs. 12501/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Apart from this a sum of Rs.10,000/- has also been claimed towards compensation besides cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

    2. The opposite party No.1 filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties in view of terms and conditions contained in invoice/ cash memo / Bill No.0029 wherein it has been incorporated that any defect found in goods sold during warranty period responsibility/ liability to repair/ replace the goods will be of manufacturer only and since the article purchased was manufactured by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd -92 Industrial Suburb Area Yesgwantpur Bangluru 560022 Karnatka therefore the same is necessary party, that the printer had been purchased on 3-2-2007 the same did not fall with in warranty period of one year.


    That the printer had been repaired through Engineer on the complaint of the complainant and that the same had developed problems due to negligence and use of rough paper which is not meant for printer use and due to which the ink in the toner got exhausted which had been refilled free of cost as a goodwill gesture and that the dispute involved in the complaint cannot be redressed without bringing on record the manufacturer and that adjudication of disputes requires volume of evidence and as such remedy if any lies before the civil court. On merits the opposite party No.1 had not denied the sale of the printer in question by it with warranty for one year . It has been denied that at any point of time the printer was brought for repair to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 had taken the same stand as taken in preliminary objections . The receipt of complaints by the complainant dated 30-7-2007 and 4-8-2008 had been denied by the opposite parties .


    It has further been averred that there is no necessity to replace the printer as it was not having any defect worth repair and in view of the fact that it was not photostatting the desired number of copies due to misuse . Also the printer was purchased for domestic use but it was being used for commercial purpose as the same has been used by the Society. The allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been denied . It has further been contended that the demand of the complainant for replacement of the printer or refund of the amount is uncalled for. The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. Initially the opposite party No.2 had put in appearance through counsel but failed to file any reply and the defence was struck off on 30-4-2009. Lateron none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and was proceeded against exparte on 29-8-2009.

    4. The complainant had filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party No.1 reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .

    5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and the opposite party No.1and have carefully gone through the entire case file. From the perusal of the complaint ,reply and accompanying documents , it is apparent that the only point for determination by this Forum is that whether the printer in question is defective and is not functioning after several repairs .Be it stated that the opposite party No.1 had not denied the sale of printer in question to the complainant on 3-2-2007 in the sum of Rs.12501/-. To substantiate his case, the complainant has adduced in evidence photocopies of cash memo and letters dated 30-7-2007, 4-8-2008 sent to the opposite party No.1 apprising it about the defect in the printer in question right from the day one of its purchase.


    It has specifically been mentioned in the letters by the complainant that work of photostat and typing was suffering due to non functioning of the printer . On the other hand the opposite party No.1 in its reply had averred that the complainant had verbally asked it to check the product and it was found that rough paper was being used for photostatting which was not meant for photostat and due to negligent act of the complainant , the toner ink got exhausted . Further case of the opposite parties is that as a gesture of goodwill toner ink was refilled with specific direction to the complainant not to use rough paper in the printer.


    Therefore, it has become clear that according to the opposite party No.1, the printer was checked and it was found that the defect in the printer developed as the complainant was using rough papers in the printer. In our opinion , once it has been admitted by the opposite party No.1 that there was some defect in the printer, then the onus shifts upon it to prove that the defect in the printer developed due to negligent use of it by the complainant. However, no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party No.1 in support of its version. To substantiate its case , the opposite party No.1 has failed to file affidavit of any Engineer/ Expert / mechanic who had checked the printer in question.


    No job card has been produced by the opposite party No.1 to show that the defect developed in the printer due to the use of rough papers and that the complainant was advised not to use the same as it could spoil the product. The opposite party No.2 who is the manufacturer of the product in question had failed to file any reply despite various opportunities granted in this behalf which suggests that it has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the claim of the complainant. In our opinion, it was the bounden duty of both the opposite parties to check and examine the printer , once the defect in the same had been reported by the complainant .


    The printer was purchased by the complainant on 3-2-2007 from the opposite party No.1 as per cash memo dated 3-2-2007 and it has been established by the complainant that it had developed defect during the period of warranty and defect in the same continue as the opposite parties have failed to rectify it . Hence ,we have no hesitation to conclude that the printer is question is defective one and despite repeated requests the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect which tantamounts to deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable either to replace the printer with new one or refund its price and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the him as well as for deficiency in service.

    6 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective printer with new one of same make and model within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which to refund the price of printer i.e. Rs.12501/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of its purchase till payment In addition to this , the opposite parties shall pay Rs.2000 /- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

    7 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

    8 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Chandermani Sharma son of Sh. Apurba Pandit presently Secretary Radha Sawami Satsang Beas , Centre Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

    …Complainant

    V/S



    1. M/S Greatway Enterprises 197/6 Samkhetar Bazar Mandi Town , District Mandi, H.P. through its Proprietor

    2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd 92 Industrial Suburb Area Yashwantpur Bangluru Karnatka 560022 through its Managing Director

    ..Opposite parties







    ORDER.

    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The complainant is secretary of complainant’s Society. The complainant averred that on 3-2-2007, he purchased H.P. Lazer Jet M 1005 MPP Printer from the opposite party vide cash/ memo No.0029 for the purpose of official use by paying Rs.12501/-. That soon after the purchase of the aforesaid printer , it started giving problem from the very first day and only after photostatting about 600 copies , it started giving problems and this fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party made minor repair and thereafter it again started giving problems just after one month of its repair.


    The opposite party No.1 was again notified of the defect and it again sent their Engineer who had removed the fault. Thereafter the printer again started creating problems after one and a half month . The complainant requested the opposite party many times to either repair the printer or to replace the same because there was inherent defect in the printer but of no avail . The complainant averred that he had filed a complaint in this regard on 30-7-2007 with the opposite party, but the opposite party made lame excuses and till date is lingering on the matter .


    The complainant further alleged that on 4-8-2008 he again gave another written complaint to it regarding the defect in the printer but in vain which act on the part of the opposite party falls under unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. During the pendency of the complaint the complainant has moved an application for impleading the manufacture as opposite party which was allowed on 17-2-2009 and manufacturer was impleaded as opposite party No.2.With these allegations , the complainant had sought direction to the opposite parties either to replace the printer with new one or to refund Rs. 12501/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Apart from this a sum of Rs.10,000/- has also been claimed towards compensation besides cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

    2. The opposite party No.1 filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties in view of terms and conditions contained in invoice/ cash memo / Bill No.0029 wherein it has been incorporated that any defect found in goods sold during warranty period responsibility/ liability to repair/ replace the goods will be of manufacturer only and since the article purchased was manufactured by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd -92 Industrial Suburb Area Yesgwantpur Bangluru 560022 Karnatka therefore the same is necessary party, that the printer had been purchased on 3-2-2007 the same did not fall with in warranty period of one year , that the printer had been repaired through Engineer on the complaint of the complainant and that the same had developed problems due to negligence and use of rough paper which is not meant for printer use and due to which the ink in the toner got exhausted which had been refilled free of cost as a goodwill gesture and that the dispute involved in the complaint cannot be redressed without bringing on record the manufacturer and that adjudication of disputes requires volume of evidence and as such remedy if any lies before the civil court.


    On merits the opposite party No.1 had not denied the sale of the printer in question by it with warranty for one year . It has been denied that at any point of time the printer was brought for repair to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 had taken the same stand as taken in preliminary objections . The receipt of complaints by the complainant dated 30-7-2007 and 4-8-2008 had been denied by the opposite parties . It has further been averred that there is no necessity to replace the printer as it was not having any defect worth repair and in view of the fact that it was not photostatting the desired number of copies due to misuse .


    Also the printer was purchased for domestic use but it was being used for commercial purpose as the same has been used by the Society. The allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been denied . It has further been contended that the demand of the complainant for replacement of the printer or refund of the amount is uncalled for. The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

    3. Initially the opposite party No.2 had put in appearance through counsel but failed to file any reply and the defence was struck off on 30-4-2009. Lateron none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and was proceeded against exparte on 29-8-2009.

    4. The complainant had filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party No.1 reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .

    5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and the opposite party No.1and have carefully gone through the entire case file. From the perusal of the complaint ,reply and accompanying documents , it is apparent that the only point for determination by this Forum is that whether the printer in question is defective and is not functioning after several repairs .Be it stated that the opposite party No.1 had not denied the sale of printer in question to the complainant on 3-2-2007 in the sum of Rs.12501/-.


    To substantiate his case, the complainant has adduced in evidence photocopies of cash memo and letters dated 30-7-2007, 4-8-2008 sent to the opposite party No.1 apprising it about the defect in the printer in question right from the day one of its purchase. It has specifically been mentioned in the letters by the complainant that work of photostat and typing was suffering due to non functioning of the printer . On the other hand the opposite party No.1 in its reply had averred that the complainant had verbally asked it to check the product and it was found that rough paper was being used for photostatting which was not meant for photostat and due to negligent act of the complainant , the toner ink got exhausted .


    Further case of the opposite parties is that as a gesture of goodwill toner ink was refilled with specific direction to the complainant not to use rough paper in the printer. Therefore, it has become clear that according to the opposite party No.1, the printer was checked and it was found that the defect in the printer developed as the complainant was using rough papers in the printer. In our opinion , once it has been admitted by the opposite party No.1 that there was some defect in the printer, then the onus shifts upon it to prove that the defect in the printer developed due to negligent use of it by the complainant. However, no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party No.1 in support of its version.


    To substantiate its case , the opposite party No.1 has failed to file affidavit of any Engineer/ Expert / mechanic who had checked the printer in question. No job card has been produced by the opposite party No.1 to show that the defect developed in the printer due to the use of rough papers and that the complainant was advised not to use the same as it could spoil the product. The opposite party No.2 who is the manufacturer of the product in question had failed to file any reply despite various opportunities granted in this behalf which suggests that it has nothing to say in the matter except to admit the claim of the complainant. In our opinion, it was the bounden duty of both the opposite parties to check and examine the printer , once the defect in the same had been reported by the complainant .


    The printer was purchased by the complainant on 3-2-2007 from the opposite party No.1 as per cash memo dated 3-2-2007 and it has been established by the complainant that it had developed defect during the period of warranty and defect in the same continue as the opposite parties have failed to rectify it . Hence ,we have no hesitation to conclude that the printer is question is defective one and despite repeated requests the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect which tantamounts to deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable either to replace the printer with new one or refund its price and also to compensate the complainant on account of harassment suffered by the him as well as for deficiency in service.

    6 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective printer with new one of same make and model within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which to refund the price of printer i.e. Rs.12501/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of its purchase till payment In addition to this , the opposite parties shall pay Rs.2000 /- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

    7 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

    8 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record

    Room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Jaspreet Singh S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh, aged 21 years R/O at present Room No.31, Block No.2 Hostel No.3, Chandigarh (Permanent residence: Village Piplanwali, Distt. Hoshiarpur).
    ….Complainant.


    V e r s u s



    i) Paramatrix Info Solutions P. Ltd. SCO 112-113, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

    ii) R.T. Outsourcing Services Ltd. SCO 128-129, Ist Floor, Sec. 34-A, Chandigarh-22.

    iii) Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. SCO 58, 2nd Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh (Corporate Office)

    ..…Opposite Parties





    The case of the complainant is, that he purchased a laptop Pavillion DV-6137 (Product No. (1P)RM624PA)from OP-1 on 24.02.2007 vide VAT INVOICE under the usual terms of warranty on payment of Rs. 64000/-. OP-2 is the authorized service center of HP. The Complainant gave his laptop to OP-2 on 16.12.2008, which is an HP Authorized Service Centre because of display problem in the laptop.


    The same party is alleged to have replaced the mother board of the laptop of the Complainant on 17.12.2008 and charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- as the defect had occurred after the warranty period but the old motherboard was never shown to the Complainant.

    The Complainant further submitted on the asking of OP-2, he got extended the warranty of his laptop for 1 year on 17.12.08 by purchasing “CARE PACK” bearing Serial Number G1NPINOE5359 for laptop on payment of Rs.6180/- whose expiry is dated 27.11.09. On 23.01.09, due to persisting of the problem the Complainant again gave thelaptop to OP-2 for removal of display problem and defect in touch pad and the OP-2 again said that motherboard of the laptop will have to be changed again on receiving the parts in their office.


    Since then, laptop is lying with the OP-2 and the Complainant is waiting but OP-2 has failed to set his laptop right despite repeated requests. Even the Complainant has personally requested the supplier of the parts Mr. Brijish Harbola on 16.03.09 through e-mail and also received the response thereon through ex-mail but all in vain. The CASE ID :2605438260 and the JOB CARD is 2310.

    Complainant apprehends that the OP-2 had not replaced the mother board of his laptop with the new motherboard and had illegally charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- by rectifying the defect temporarily as the same defect had occurred again. Moreover, the complainant was never shown the old mother board which the OP-2 claimed to have replaced with a new motherboard. Thus, OP-2 has indulged in unfair trade practice, firstly while concealing the original motherboard from the complainant and secondly while keeping the laptop of the Complainant with them for more than 2 months, without even making the alternative arrangement for him.

    The Complainant is an engineering student and has spent huge amount on the purchase and repair of the laptop to run his studies smoothly with the help of laptop. On account of not rectifying the defect in the laptop, his studies are highly suffering at the time when his final examinations are about to commence, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The laptop with the alleged replaced motherboard is lying with Complainant as a scrap. Alleging this deficiency on the part of Ops, the Complainant has made following claims_

    i) To refund Rs.64,000/- of defective laptop

    ii) To refund Rs.7,000/- as a price of alleged replaced motherboard

    iii) To pay Rs.6180/- charged towards CARE PACK

    iv) To payRs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and loss of studies including expenditure for carrying the laptop for service.

    2. We have thoroughly gone through the record put up by the learned counsel for the complainant as well learned counsel for OP-1 and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

    3. Learned counsel for OP-1 was present in the initial hearing of the case and reply along with evidence on behalf of OP-1 had been placed on record. In the subsequent hearings since OP-1 or his counsel was not present and it was proceeded against ex parte. On the same lines, Ops 2 & 3 or their learned counsel never made any appearance and were proceeded as ex parte.

    As per the complaint, all the allegations are about “CARE PACK” which was availed by the complainant from OP-2. Therefore, Ops 1 & 3 have no role to play in the “CARE PACK” availed by the complainant from OP-2.

    4. In the reply filed by OP-1, it has been mentioned that the complaint does not lie against the answering OP as the complaint is about “CARE PACK” which was availed by the complainant from the OP-2. Answering OP has no rule to play in the CARE PACK availed by the complainant from the OP-2.

    5. The complainant with the help of Vat Invoice, Laptop Product, Cash Memo Bills, outsourcing Memo, Care Pack Certificate, Registration Information, Service Call report and E-mail copies issued by the Op-2 has successfully established on record, that the Laptop in question was purchased for Rs.64000/- plus Rs.7000/- for motherboard replacement for one year extra guarantee, along with Care Pack Recharge for Rs.6180/-, thus totaling of Rs.77,180/-.


    In addition, from the detailed affidavit filed by the Complainant, it stands further established that the Laptop in question failed to render proper service within few months. Even the replaced motherboard could not rectify the defect. The laptop was handed over to the OP-2 for repair but the OP-2 has not returned the same nor has any alternative arrangement been made.

    6. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-2 to handover fully functional said laptop and pay Rs.7000/- for mother board paid by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him, in addition to Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2, not other Ops (Ops 1 & 3). The present complaint stands dismissed qua OP-1 & OP-3.
  • edited August 2014
    Bought charger and assured for warrenty from KRISHNA AGENCIES, Bailey road patna but from far distance I found it not working and again went for replacement and they did it but with unmannered way with anger and rudely kept me waiting till 6 hours and when replaced and I came home & checked that it had alternating current at it's end pin due to which my working battery got short-circuit and found due to direct flow of alt.current through charger and now that agency refused badly to return even that faulty charger who should replace both because of irresponsibility done by thenthen.
  • edited August 2014
    Greetings!
    Sir this grievance of mine has not been addressed for one month by HP. I have a HP f202in PC. The WiFi has not been working and the system has become corrupt. Despite 7 reminders to their service head and repeated calls to the customer service, my work has only been delayed. Sir, I need the PC for business and due to this, my entire work is stuckup. Please please please help. My mobile number- 9404610256, Complaint ID- 4001001470
Sign In or Register to comment.