Date of filing       : 09.02.2016.

                                                                                    Date of disposal : 06.07.2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:      THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,       …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT. S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                       …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.07/2016

(Dated this Thursday the 06^th day of July 2017)

Mr. John Bhasme,

Shyams Riviera, I Block,

Flat No.3, 2^nd Street,

Venkatchalam Nagar,

Thirumulaivoyal,

Chennai - 600 062.                                                                 …. Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  Reliance Retail Limited,

    (Through the Manager),

    Flat No.41 and 42, C.T.H. Road,

    Near Sangam Hotel,

    Ambattur,

    Chennai - 600 053.

2. Reliance Retail Limited,

    (Through the Managing Director),

    Corporate Office,

    3^rd Floor, Court House,

    Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao,

    Mumbai - 400 002.                                                    ….  Opposite parties.

This complaint has come before us finally on 13.06.2017 in the presence of the complainant and Thiru. K. Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties and upon hearing arguments, and having perused the documents and evidences and written arguments of both sides, this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.  SUJATHA, MEMBER – 1.

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties for seeking refund of Rs.1,290/- and Rs.3,667/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for causing inconvenience, loss, mental agony and harassment due to their unfair trade practice with cost Rs.50,000/- and interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the above all amounts.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

          The complainant purchased HP Pavillion Laptop for Rs.42,990/- from the 1^st opposite party on 28.05.2015.  He had paid a sum of Rs.1,290/- towards one year extended warranty and Rs.3,667/- towards additional two years Extended Warranty.  Therefore, the extended warranty is supposed to expire only on 27 May 2019.  But the online status for the complainant’s Laptop bearing serial No.# 5CD44883Z4 shows as expiring on 27 May 2016..  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party has committed unfair trade practice under Section 2(1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that by misleading the complainant to believe that the product purchased from the 1^st opposite party is covered with manufacturer’s warranty for additional three years i.e. till 27 May 2019 which leads to deficiency of service under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the 1^st opposite party has illegally sold the Laptop with 3 years warranty despite knowing that the manufacturer does not honour or allow third party warranty.  Further, the 1^st opposite party had suppressed the fact form the complainant that the warranty is not being given by the manufacturer.  Then the complainant sent notice through International Consumer Rights Protection Council on 29.12.2015 but the opposite party did not respond.  Hence the complaint.

3.       The contention of written version of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties is  briefly as follows:-

      All the statements, allegations and contentions contained in the complaint raised except those that are expressly admitted since it is as false and frivolous.  The opposite parties are engaged in the business of retail, selling consumer durables, electronic  goods, Electronic household appliances of various brands under authentication etc., The opposite parties sell these products manufactured by various companies and firms including HP products, by strictly complying with all the norms, rules and regulations in this regard and by adhering  to the provisions thereof.  Being a seller, this opposite parties does not keep any product or material for sale which are defective or substandard in quality.  It is true that the complainant purchased HP Pavilion Laptop on 28.05.2015 for Rs.42,990/- from Digital Store, Ambattur, Chennai from the 1^st opposite party herein and the offers provided to the complainant are as follows:

1.  The complainant had taken this laptop in Bajaj Finance 9/3 Scheme, where the laptop cost is Rs.42,990/-. As per the scheme, the complainant had paid Rs.28,659/- as down payment
2.  The complainant had purchased 32GB Pen drive for Rs.1,099/- (For OS Backup) and Laptop Cooler for Rs.499/-. 
3.  The opposite parties had offered the complainant RCP (ResQ Care Plan) with Extended Warranty for wide range with 2 years Extended Warranty and Theft Insurance at free of cost.  This was absolutely free at the time of billing and the opposite parties haven’t charged single money for the above.
4.  Free Microsoft Mouse.
5.  Free Laptop Bag.
6.  Free RCP KIT which has free Discount Coupons.

4.        As the complainant is the opposite parties’ esteemed customer, the opposite parties had billed the laptop with RCP Extended warranty (ResQ Care Plan) (Not HP Warranty). The complainant had signed the Acknowledgment copy after reading all the terms and conditions.  But after six months, the complainant claiming that he was unaware of Reliance Extended warranty which is not all acceptable even the complainant haven’t charged money for its RCP Extended warranty and Theft Insurance.  Till date, the complainant is paying only the Laptop cost to Bajaj Finance.

5.       The opposite parties explained the queries raised by the complainant over phone as well as through emails many times about HP warranty.  The HP will offer HP Care Pack Services where customer can avail through HP Authorized dealer, HP Website and HP Customer Care Phone and not for the purchase through Reliance Digital.  The opposite parties’ staff has clearly explained this to the complainant at the time of sale of the product itself and that if the complainant interested to get the HP Care Pack Services they can get it after accepting the HP Terms and conditions  with EXCLUSIVE HP AUTHORISED DEALER and not with such brand warranty in opposite parties Reliance Digital show room.  In the given case, the complainant only have to enquire about HP warranty to HP and not with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties can provide the complainant only the details and the opposite parties are not authorized to sell such Brand Warranties in Reliance Digital show room.

6.       They further informed the complainant that they never Encourages its staffs for wrong communications or wrong commitment.  The complainant has filed the above complaint with false allegations and averments and with ulterior motive to grab money from the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties i.e. misusing the Consumer Protection Act.  While so, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties deny all the allegations contained in the above complaint that they are liable to pay full refund of Rs.1,290/- + Rs.3,667/- and the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation for Rs.2,00,000/-.  The 1 & 2^nd opposite parties stoutly deny the complainant’s allegations that the opposite parties misleading the complainant to believe that the product purchased from them is covered with manufacturer’s warranty for additional 3 years.  There is no cause of action to entertain the above complaint as against the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties.

7.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties, the proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2  were marked on their side.

8.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

9.     Written arguments filed and oral arguments also adduced by both sides.

10.     Point no.1:-

According to the case of the complainant, it is learnt that the complainant had purchased a HP Pavilion Laptop from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.42,990/- through Ex.A1, invoice along with the Ex.A2, Warranty Card only up to 27.05.2016.  Further, it is learnt that the complainant had paid Rs.1,290/- towards one year extended warranty and Rs.3,667/- for additional two years extended warranty as per Ex.A1 which supposed to be expiring only on 29.05.2019.  But online status of his Laptop shows that the warranty expiry date is on 27.05.2016 i.e. Ex.A2 and therefore, the complainant had issued Ex.A3, notice to the opposite parties for their deficiency of service and in order to prove his averments of the complaint he has produced Ex.A4 to Ex.A10.

11.     On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite party that they had offered the complainant RCP (ResQ Care Plan) with extended warranty for a wide range of two years and theft insurance at  free of cost and it was absolutely free at the time of billing and the opposite party have not charged a singly money for the above.  It is false to say that the product purchased from them is covered with manufacturers’ warranty for additional three years i.e. upto 27.05.2019 and if the complainant would have filed the warranty to reveal the facts that the extended warranty starts after the expiry of the initial one year warranty and infact there is no question of unfair trade practice and no deficiency of service and the same has been proved through Ex.B1 & Ex.B2.

12.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that the complainant had purchased HP Pavilion Laptop from the 1^st opposite party through Ex.A1, Invoice and Ex.A2, Warranty status displayed in the Laptop.   Similarly, Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are not at all disputed by the opposite parties.  At the outset, on careful perusal of the Ex.A1, Invoice it clearly reveals the fact of payment of Rs.1,290/- for 1 year extended warranty and Rs.3,667/- for 2 years extended warranty and the same has been highlighted by the complainant.  It is further seen from Ex.A1, below, the above fact regarding theft accidental insurance of Rs.1,290/- has been adjusted as narrated by the opposite party.   But from the documents  Ex.A4, to Ex.A10, it is seen that the ResQ Care Plan, that the theft and accidental insurance are given free to every customer for purchasing electronic products from the 1^st opposite party.   Further, it is seen from Ex.B1, it is clearly mentioned that two years extended warranty and theft insurance at free of cost for ResQ Care Plan.  If it is so, in the document, Ex.B1, if mentioned as free insurance for theft but at the same time from Ex.A4 to Ex.A7, it is pertinent to note that the extended warranty is meant for accidental as well as the theft insurance are free of cost.  Therefore, the plea taken by the opposite party can be rejected since it is clearly seen from the Ex.A2 and Ex.A1 as well as Ex.B2, the Extended Warranty Card for 2 years and another one year warranty card have been issued by the 1^st opposite party on payment of cost.   Therefore, there is a clear misleading on the part of the opposite party and thereby, the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice which clearly leads to deficiency of service.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

13.     Point no.2:-

In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, this Forum concludes that the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,957/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred and fifty seven only) collected towards extended warranty with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this complaint (i.e. 25.01.2016) to the date of this order (i.e. 06.07.2017) to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) for causing mental agony and inconvenience due to unfair trade practice which leads to deficiency of service on the part of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties with cost Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

The above amounts shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% till the date of payment.

Dictated by the Member - 1 to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member - 1 and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 06^th  July  2017.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT