D.O.F. 03.10.2009
D.O.O.23.02.2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Dated this the 23rd day of February 2012.
C.C.No.268/2009
Anoop Scaria,
Pampackal House,
P.O.Naduvi,
Cockayi 670 582. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.T.M.Phalgunan)
1.Hewlett-Paclard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.
8/10,GD Naidu Street, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore 641 018.
(Rep. by Adv.A.K.Sajithkumar)
2. M/s.Focuz Computers,
Union Shopping Complex,
South Bazar, Kannur 2.
3. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’
Eswar Homes D.No.47-11-3.
First Lane, Dwaraka Nagar,
Viskhapatnam.A.P
4. Microcare Computers Pvt.Ltd. 47-10-32,
1st floor,Guttikonda Mansions,
Near Diomond Park. Dwarakanagar,
Vishakapatnam 530 016. Opposite Parties
(Rep. by Adv.P.K.Ramesh)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the laptop battery mentioned in the complaint with a new laptop battery in good condition with `50,000 as compensation and cost.
The case in brief of the complainant is that he has purchased a Compaq Persaario laptop from 2nd opposite party with one year warranty on 12.1.08 and 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the same by availing a loan from North Malabar Gramin Bank, Chempanthotty branch. Within six months of its purchase battery become over heating and was functioning only for less than 30 minutes. Immediately the complainant has met Micro Care computer Pvt.Ltd; Visaka Patanam the nearest authorized Hire Purchase Service centre for curing the defects and as per their request the complainant formatted the laptop. Later the problem becomes severe and on 2.1.09 the complainant again met Micro Care Computer with the same problem and formatted his laptop and entrusted the laptop to another authorized service centre. Maha Electronics, Visakhapatanam as per their advice. On 7.1.09 they have installed some software and tested battery efficiency and found defective and lodged a complaint regarding this problem with H.P and issued service call report to the complainant. Again they asked complainant to bring battery for taking photos and complainant done so. After continuous enquiry Maha Electronics informed complainant that there is difference in serial numbers of the lap top and its battery. So they are not ready to replace the battery. Complainant contacted HP through remote support as per the advice of Maha Electronics. As per the advice complainant registered another complaint. Through e-mails customer care executives confirmed that there is difference in serial number of the lap top and its battery. So H.P cannot change battery. There is clear negligence on the part of opposite parties. Again on 8th May 2009 complainant sent a registered letter to Sales Manger. But not responded for the same. But on 17th June 2009 the complainant got an e –mail from H.P Company. As per the e-mail, the H.P Company announced voluntary recalls and replacement program for some of the battery packs used in certain H.P not books. H.P customers affected by these programs will be eligible to receive a replacement battery pack for each verified recalled battery pack at no cost. Complainant’s computer is covering under the program announced on 14th May 2009 and it is a C 700 product. As per the information given by the company the complainant is eligible for getting his battery replace. In this e-mail it is mentioned that HP is conducting a worldwide voluntary recall of certain battery shipped in H.P Pavalian, H.P Compaq and Compaq note book. PCS manufactured between August 2007 and January 2008. The purchase date of complainant’s lap top is on 12.1.2008. Even though the complainant followed all steps to get his battery replaced all are in vein. So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has suffered great mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties. He had taken leave and spends his precious study and teaching hours for solving the issue. The complainant is entitled to get battery replaced and to get a reasonable damage of `50000 from the opposite parties for traveling and other expenses. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1st opposite party appeared and filed his version. The 2nd opposite party from whom the complainant has purchased the lap top is not the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and admits that opposite parties 3 and 4 are authorized service centers of 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has a customer friendly company and has any genuine complaint the company has no problem in redressing the same. The 1st opposite party company has full proof redressal department and 24 hours toll free numbers. On verifying customer care data base, based on serial number of product purchased by the complainant, it was found that complainant had lodged four complaint with respect to battery issue in the laptop, two complaints dt. 19.1.09, 29.1.09, 6.2.09. But the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to approach the service centre as the component tracking number of the battery was not matching the serial number of the product. The product of opposite party comes with a serial number and every product has several parts and each are marked with component tracking number. One particular serial number will have specific parts with particular CT Number and this helps the opposite party to identify if any customers change the parts. The customer care centre of the 1st opposite party found that the C.T number of the battery was mismatching and hence the machine would not be covered under the terms of warranty and the same was informed to the complainant. The complainant was not eligible and the system of the complainant was not covered under the program to replace battery, Since the C-7 number was not matching the serial number. There is no issue with the particular model and 2nd opposite party is not the authorized dealer of opposite party and hence 1st opposite party is not responsible for the act of 2nd opposite party. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is trying for an unjust enrichment and trying his lucky by filing the complaint and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The opposite parties 2 to 4 remains absent even though they have served proper notice. Later on 1st opposite party also remain absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte
The main point to be decided in the above case is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
The evidence consists of chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A5.
The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a laptop from 2nd opposite party made by 1st opposite party and its battery became defective within 6 months of its purchase and the opposite parties are not ready to replace the same by saying that the C.T numbers differs from that issued to him. The 1st opposite party admits the purchase of their product, laptop and it is also admitted that the battery is defective .The contention put forwarded by 1st opposite party is that the battery bears different serial number and it is not come under the warranty conditions. But according to the complainant, the 1`st opposite party manufacturer announced a voluntary recalls and replacement program for some of the battery packs used in certain H.P Note book. H.P customers affected by these programs will be eligible to receive a replacement battery pack for each verified, recalled battery pack at no cost and recall programs were announced on May 14, 2009, 2008 October 30, 2006 April 20 and 2005 October 14 and the complainant’s computer is covering under the program announced on 14th May 2009 and is a C 700 series product. But the 1st opposite party has not produced any documents to show that the complainant’s laptop will not come within the recall package. More over 1st opposite party remains absent after filing version. Thus it is deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party. More over even after repeated request the 2nd opposite party from whom the complainant has purchased the computer have also not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and other opposite parties are exonerated from liability. So from the above discussion it is seen that opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to replace the battery of the complainant’s laptop and `2500 as compensation and `500 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the battery of the complainant’s laptop along with `2500 (Rupees Two thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation and `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/-
President Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1Copy of the warranty card issued by OP
A2.Copy of the test report
A3. Tax invoice issued by Focuz computers
A4.Tax invoice dt.2.1.09 issued by Micro care Computers Pvt.Ltd.
A5. Service call report
Exhibits for the opposite Parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
