ALPHA COMPUTERS V/S BALWINDER SINGH - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Ambala

CC/308/2014

BALWINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALPHA COMPUTERS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP CHAUHAN

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

Consumer Complaint No.: 308 of 2014

Date of Institution: 05.11.2014

Date of Decision: 28.08.2017

Balwinder Singh, proprietor of Ashutosh Automobile (TVS Showroom), situated near Bus Stand Barara, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

...................Complainant

VERSUS

ALPHA COMPUTERS, Head Office-SCO 170, Gandhi Market Ambala Cantt., through its Proprietor Shri Rajinder Pal Singh.
Customer Care Executive, Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited, 24 Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Audogodi, Bangalore-560030, through its Proprietor.
Particulars and complete Address of manufacturer are to be disclosed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

...................Opposite Parties

BEFORE: SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

Present: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, Adv. for Complainant.

Sh. Harjot Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. for OP No.2.

None for OP No.3.

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

Sh. Balwinder Singh, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Alpha Computers and others/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Laptop C7d79pa#acj (15-B002tu) 5cd24034gk, Make “HP”, and one Laserjet M1005 Printer, Make “HP” from OP No.1 vide bill invoice No.4472 dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure C-1) for a total consideration of Rs.41,000/- including taxes. The complainant avers that after purchase of the abovesaid Laptop and Printer, he brought the same at home and started installing the same but since the date of purchase, a major defect appeared in the abovesaid products; and accordingly he contacted OP No.1 regarding the defect of the abovesaid two products. The complainant further avers that OP No.1 did not take care and lodge the complaint of the complainant, and that OP No.1 assured him that they will either get the defects from the abovesaid two products removed; or get it replaced by new one or get the money returned. It is alleged by the complainant that despite repeated visits at the showroom of OP No.1, the Opposite Party did not get the defects removed or replaced the products by new one. It is averred that the Laptop and Printer are very much in need for the smooth business of the complainant in his regular course of business.
After that, the complainant served a legal notice registered AD dated 01.08.2014 upon OP No.1 and 2 (Annexure C-2, 3 and 4) thereby asking them to either replace the said defective Laptop and Printer with a new one or return the price of the products. The reply to the said notice was given by OP No.1 on dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure C-6) and by OP No.2 on dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure C-7).
In its reply, OP No.1 has raised preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant does not come under the definition of the ‘Consumer’ as per section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant himself admitted that the products were purchased by him for running his automobile business (hereinafter referred to as “Issue No.1”). Also, other preliminary objection has been raised by OP No.1 that the present complaint be dismissed on the ground that throughout the length & breadth of the case, the complainant has not mentioned even a word as to what is the problem in the Laptop/Printer, and that the goods purchased by the complainant are running perfectly and that the motive behind filing the present complaint was just to settle the personal scores with OP No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “Issue No.2”). It is averred by OP No.1 that after the purchase of the above said products, the complainant had never visited the office of OP No.1 much less to give any assurance by OP No.1. In the 3^rd week of July 2014, OP No.1 received a call from the complainant to come at his workplace at village Barara to install the latest version of Windows in his laptop free of cost. It is further averred that as he was busy at the shop, OP No.1 requested the complainant to bring his laptop at the shop for installing the latest version ‘Windows’ at the cost less than the prevalent market rate on which the complainant shouted at him and as such he flatly refused to install the same as he was not duty bound for instalment of software. This allegedly prompted the complainant to file the present complaint in order to settle the aforesaid personal scores with OP No.1. One more preliminary objection has been raised stating that OP No.1 is only a dealer and has no liability for the manufacturing defect if any in the Laptop/Printer, and that it was allegedly specifically told to the complainant by OP No.1 that the warranty/guarantee would only be provided by the manufacturer and not by OP No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “Issue No.3”). In its evidence, OP No.1 has also tendered invoice No.4476 dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure R-1) which purportedly states the aforesaid no liability clause on the part of OP No.1.
Ms. Spurthi Mouli, D/o A.S. Chandra Mouli, Authorised Signatory of Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited has submitted reply on behalf of OP No.2. It is stated that OP No.2 is a globally acclaimed manufacturer for the class and quality of its products and that the customers of its products are provided services through a large network of authorised channel partners and service centres. It is further stated that a dedicated all India Toll Free helpline No. (Monday to Friday) 9 am to 6 pm (excluding public holidays) has been also provided to the customers for attending to any service/repairs, thus providing assistance to the customers in distress. Preliminary objection has been taken that the description of OP No.2 in the complaint is an employee of Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd. and that OP No.2 as such has no privity of contract with the complainant and that the complaint filed against OP No.2 arraying him in the personal capacity is not maintainable (hereinafter referred to as “Issue No.4”). OP No.2 avers that on verifying customer care database, based on serial no. of product purchased by the complainant, it was found that the complainant had neither reported any issues in the laptop and the printer nor logged any calls/complaints to the OP No.2 or its customer care centre/ authorised service centre (hereinafter referred to as “Issue No.5”).
We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant and have also perused the case file.
Firstly, we would ponder upon Issue No.1. According to Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the expression “consumer” does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Explanation attached to this clause says that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In our opinion, the nature of goods or services consumed though may aid in the commercial / business venture but goods or services so consumed must be clearly independent of the nature of commercial / business venture to be exempted from purview of “Commercial purposes”. Like a company buying raw material for making finished goods is not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act of 1986. However, a Company will be a consumer wherein if it buys office machineries like fax, printers & air conditioners because the company although 'consumes' that fax, printers & air conditioners, but they are purchased not for resale and although fax, printers aid in its commercial activity but their commercial activity has nothing to do with the consumption of that fax, printers & air conditioners. Thus, buying a laptop and printer by the complainant, though might assist in smooth functioning of his business, but they could not, by any imagination, be termed as core/ integral part of his business of selling of TVS automobiles. Moreover, in Super Computer Centre v. Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd., 3 (2006) CPJ 256 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held that since defect in goods in question was brought to the notice of Opposite Party within warranty period the complainant will be a 'consumer' even though the goods were purchased for commercial purpose. Hence, Objection raised under Issue No.1 fails.
Deciding on Issue No.3, we are of the view that when a consumer buys a product and it turns out to be defective, s/he immediately takes it to the dealer/retailer expecting a quick apology and a replacement or refund. Unfortunately, more often than not, it turns out to be a tormenting experience as the dealer turns defensive and refuses to own up responsibility. He will either blame the consumer stating that s/he had deliberately damaged the product or will pass the buck on to the manufacturer stating that the responsibility for the defect rests solely with the manufacturer. This unfair practice, wherein the consumer often fails to find appropriate means to approach manufacturer for quick redressal, has been put to rest in a catena of judgments by the Consumer Courts. A dealer/retailer cannot shy away from responsibility when it comes to defective goods. One such case is Harmohinder Singh v. Anil Sehgal and another, 2 (1999) CPJ 8 (NC) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that a dealer cannot avoid his liability simply on the ground that he is not a manufacturer of the defective goods. lies against such dealer who fails to carry out the terms of the warranty. Hence, Objection raised under Issue No.3 fails.
Now, deciding on Issue No.4, it is true that if any decision/ order is passed against OP No.2, it cannot be complied by it in his/her individual capacity, as decision of any replacement or supply of necessary products can only be taken up by OP No.3. Thus, OP No.2 cannot be held personally liable in the absence of any reasonable proof of default on her part. Hence, Objection raised under Issue No.4 sustains.
Now, we would decide upon Issue No.2 and 5. The complainant’s version of repeatedly approaching OPs is not sustainable in the absence of any proof. Despite an all India Toll Free Helpline by manufacturer (OP No.3), the complainant fails to tender any proof that he has lodged any complaint with OP No.2 or 3. Moreover, if the complainant, since the date of purchase, was allegedly so distressed by the purported major defect in both products, why has he not lodged any complaint/ reported the matter telephonically or through email with OP No.2 and 3. Moreover, non-tendering of any evidence in support of approaching OP No.1 by the complainant and that issuing a legal notice dated 01.08.2014 by the complainant, i.e. after 11 months of allegedly noticing major defects, more so when the Laptop and Printer are very much in need for the smooth business of the complainant in his regular course of business, as asserted by the complainant, negates his version. Further, it is ipso facto clear that the complainant has not uttered a single word about was the defect/ problem he faced with the products bought by him from OP No.1. Thus, the complainant could not establish any defect in the aforesaid products by any means. Hence, Objections raised under Issue No.2 and 5 sustain.
In view of the above discussion, and the fact that the complainant had not troubled himself to mention the problem/defect that he allegedly noticed in the aforesaid products even at the stage of issuing legal notice to OP No.1 and 2, much less to say at the time of filing complaint before this Forum; we come to the conclusion that the complainant could not establish his case in all its sincerity. The possibility of version of OP No.1, that the motive behind filing the present complaint was just to settle the personal scores with OP No.1, could not be ruled out; however, in the absence of any substantive proof, we would resist ourselves to comment upon that particular aspect.
For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.