PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 67/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Ashish Tigga,

S/o- Antheras Tigga,

R/o- A.N.Guha Lane,Near seva Nursing Home, Sakhipara,

PO-Sambalpur, Ps-Dhanupali

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha                                   ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Mahamaya Computer, Through Proprietor,

Main Road, Budharaja, Sambalpur, PO-Budharaja

Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004                  

2. Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt.Ltd.

Authorised Service Centre of HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

At-H.No.1395, Ward No.28, Infront of DIET,

Dirt Road, Ainithapali, Po-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali

Dist-Sambalpur-768004,

3. Regional Sales Manager, HP India Sales Pvt.Ltd.,

Orissa India, At-Plot No. 507, First Floor,

Land Mark-Infront of SBI, Sahid Nagar Branch, Sahid Nagar,

Bhubaneswar-751010.

4. The General Manager, HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

Head Ofice, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Road,

Bengaluru-560017, Karnataka                                      …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. R.L. Sharma, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :-       Sri. D. Hota, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No. 3& 4        :-       Mr. B.K. Panda, Advocate & Associates

Date of Filing:29.11.2021,     Date of Hearing :11.04.2023,     Date of Judgement : 05.06.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased one Laptop from the OP No. 1 on dtd. 29.06.2021 for a consideration of Rs. 76,300/- and the OP No. 1 provided one year warranty for the said Laptop. The OP No. 2 is the authorized service center, the OP NO. 3 is the Zonal office and the OP NO. 4 is the manufacturer of the electronic products. On 30.06.2021, the next date of purchasing the said Laptop stopped working abruptly. The Complainant gave complain to the OP No. 1 on 30.06.2021. The OP No. 1 directed the Complainant to lodge online complaint to the company. Further after one day the said laptop started working, thereafter the Complainant noticed that backlight bleeding issue arose in the display, which showed that the display of the laptop was defective. Backlight bledding is an effect where light leaks around the edges of the screen, making it unevently lit. This cannot be remedied light that’s supposed to shine through the screen comes out along the edges, resulting in uneven lighting on the screen. This created much pain and agony in the mind of the Complainant. On 15.07.2021 the Complainant made online complaint to the company regarding display problem. The Complainant waited and waited and not able to use the said Laptop without his fault. On 30.07.2021 the company sent mail to the Complainant that the defective part will come on 06.08.2021. At that time the Complainant was residing in Bhubaneswar in relation to his study, so he informed through whatsapp HP support regarding change of his address and gave details of his address. On 07.08.2021 an engineer of the company came to the residence at Bhubaneswar of the Complainant and changed the defective part/display. In spite of changed of defective part, the defect/problems could not be resolved and another new problem arose. On the same day on 07.08.2021 evening the Complainant made complaint on the whatsapp of the company and explained details regarding defects. The company directed the picture of the display and accordingly the Complainant sent pictures of display on whatsapp on the same day. When the defects could not be resolved the company requested the Complainant to deposit the said Laptop to the service center i.e. the OP No. 2 and accordingly on 13.08.2021, the Complainant deposited the said Laptop to the OP No. 2 for repairing. On 23.08.2021 the Complainant asked on whatsapp regarding problems in the said Laptop and the HP support replied that the new display which was ordered that is a mismatch, so please wait till that day. On 17.11.2021 the HP support/company admitted that “ I would like to inform you that during the first display change the display which was installed with the defective display unit of Laptop was a mismatch one and the next service center. After that he found that there is CT mismatch”. The said defective Laptop is with the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 has failed to repair the same. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP No. 4 on 18.09.2021 but the OPs did not reply which is gross deficiency in service on part of the OPs.  
2. The version of the O.P No. 1 is that the OP No. 1 has neither issued the warranty card to the Complainant nor he has issued any extended warranty card of seven month to the Complainant. The Warranty Card on the product or the extended warranty are always issued by the Mother Company or Manufactures of the product and not by the dealer. The OP No. 1 cannot be held responsible in any manner. Being a dealer of the company of the OP No. 4, the OP No. 1 has only sold the product belonging to the OP NO. 4, which was a seal covered and it was opened, in presence of the Complainant and his father. After being satisfied about the quality and the brand of OP NO. 4, the Complainant purchased the same.  The OP No. 1 has never received any legal notice from the Complainant. The OP NO. 1 had no knowledge about the defects in the Laptop prior to receipt of notice from this forum. There is no cause of action against the OP NO. 1 and all cause of action as mentioned in the petition are all against the other OPs and and as such the case is not maintainable against the OP No. 1 and liable to be dismissed.

The Version of the OP NO. 3 and 4 is that the Complainant filed this baseless and frivolous complaint alleging that the laptop is defective without having any expert opinion in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the subject laptop suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any fault/defect in laptop. The Complainant has purchased the laptop from the OP NO. 1 and the OP NO. 3 and 4 being the manufacturer of the alleged laptop no where in picture either at the time of sale to the Complainant or at the time of making of their complaints regarding the alleged defects. As such the OP No 3 & 4 are not liable for the alleged grievance of the Complainant. As per allegation of the Complainant the service team has repaired the alleged laptop resolving the issues as per term and condition of warranty. At present the Laptop is working fine. As such the Complainant is at liberty to return back the alleged laptop from the OP NO. 2. Further as per warranty condition the Complainant is not entitled to refund the cost of the Laptop or replace the Laptop. Accordingly the Complainant is not entitled to any relief as there is no deficiency in service or Unfair Trade practice on the part of the OP No. 3 and 4, for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed against the OP NO. 3 & 4.

3. From the submission and evidence it is found that the said defective Laptop is with the OP No. 2 i.e authorized service center and the OP No. 2 has failed to repair the same, there after the Complainant had given a legal notice to the OP NO. 4 but he remained silent. So deficiency of service on the part of the OP NO. 3 & 4 is established. Accordingly it is ordered.

                             ORDER

The O.P No. 3 & 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 76,300/- toward cost of the Laptop with 6% interest from the date of purchase till realisation, Rs. 30,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of June, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.