Orissa

Cuttak

CC/162/2016

Abinash Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory,Computer Professional - Opp.Party(s)

S S Mohanty

17 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.162/2016

Mr. Abinash Mohapatra,

S/O:Ranjan Kumar Mohapatra,

Res. of Mahi Das Bazaar,

Cuttack-753002..                                                      … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.       Computer Professional

Near Jaganath Petrol Pump,

Link Road,Cuttack-753012

Through its Authorized Signatory..

 

2.        Hewlett Packard Incorporated,

       5F,Salarpuria GR Tech Park,

       Khatha No.69/3,Mahadevapura CMC 5 & 9 FL,

      Whitefield Road,P.C.56006,

      Bangalore,Karnataka..

 

3.       Rajiv Srivastava,

     Managing Director,

     HP Inc, India,

     5F, Salarpuria GR Tech Park,

     Khatha No.69/3,Mahadevapura CMC 5 & 9 FL,

     Whitefield Road,P.C.56006,

     Bangalore,Karnataka..                                                                       … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     13.12.2016. 

Date of Order:  17.08.2017.

 

For the complainant        :        Mr. S.S.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.  .

For the O.P.No.1.             :        None

For the O.P No.2 & 3:               Mr. S.K.Mohanty,Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

The case is against deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.

1. In nutshell the case is that the complainant purchased a Lap-top (Model No.15-R206TX) C13-5010U/4/1T/2/8.1 from O.P No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.40,500/- vide invoice No.10186 on 26.10.2015(Annexure-1).  The said laptop started giving major hardware problems within the warranty period of one year and the complainant approached O.P No.1 several times for rectification of the same but in vain.  Complainant intimated the matter to O.P No.2 on 23.9.2016 through E.Mail.(Annexure-2).  O.P No.2 replied to the above E.Mail of the complainant on 26.9.2016 and intimated that the warranty would not be considered as there were service calls lodged prior to invoice date (Annexure-3).  This clearly indicates that the said laptop was used prior to date of sale to the complainant and complaints were also lodged earlier for some defects of the said laptop with the customer care unit of the manufacturer and it was sold to the complainant as a brand new laptop.  Thus it is clear that O.P No.1 has cheated the complainant.  In spite of repeated attempts the complainant failed to solve the issue with O.P No.1 or O.P No.2.  The complainant issued a legal notice on O.P No.1 with copy to O.P No.2 on 03.10.2016(Annexure-4) but it yielded no result.  The complainant purchased a new Laptop for his use for Rs.40,000/-(Annexure-5).  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to instruct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the old and defective Laptop amounting to Rs.40,500/- cost of new Laptop purchased for Rs.40,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for sufferings and mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- towards commuting and disruptions from study and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.  Thus he has claimed a total sum of Rs.4,10,500/- from the O.Ps along with interest.
2. O.Ps(2 &3) vide their written brief dt.27.02.2017  has intimated that the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect of the laptop without any expert opinion in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the Laptop suffers from the problems as alleged. On 09.03.2016 the complainant had reported hinge issue vide case Id No.4778154129 when the laptop was out of the warranty period for which it would not be supported free of cost  but the O.Ps(2 & 3) had agreed for replacement of the hinge free of cost without extending the warranty period to which the complainant did not agree.  The relationship exists between the O.Ps is on “principal to principal basis”.  Hence this O.P is not responsible for any independent work done by other O.Ps.
3. O.P No.1 did not participate in the hearing nor filed any written version also.  Hence set exparte on 25.7.2017.
4. We have gone through the case in details and perused the documents as filed by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps(2 & 3), heard the advocates from both the sides at length and observed that the complainant had purchased a HP laptop(15-R 206TX)-50 10U/4/IT/2/8.1 Cnd5074v98 from O.P No.,1 on 26.10.2015 for a price of Rs.40,500/-. The laptop developed certain problems for which the complainant contacted the  customer care of O.P No.2 on 23.09.2016 and came to know from the reply of “HP Customer Support” vide their E.Mail dt.26.09.2016 that the Invoice shared  with the complainant regarding sale of the said Laptop will not be considered as there were service calls logged prior to Invoice date i.e. 26.10.2015.  The O.P No.2 has also confirmed such statement vide their written version and during the course of hearing.  The Laptop was purchased from O.P No.1 on 26.10.2015 whereas service calls were recorded against the said Laptop prior to 26.10.2015 which clearly indicates that the said Laptop was in use prior to invoice date i.e. 26.10.2015.  This also indicates that one used Laptop was sold by O.P No.1 to the complainant as a brand new one.  O.P No.1 did not attend the hearing nor submitted any written version for the purpose which confirms that O.P No.1 has nothing to say in his defense with regards to the allegations made by the complainant.  The complainant has not submitted any expert opinion or laboratory test report regarding manufacturing defect of the Laptop.  Thus the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect of the Laptop as alleged by him.  In their written version O.Ps 2 & 3 have also stated that the relation between O.P No.2 and O.P No.1 are on “Principal to Principal basis” and O.P No.,1 is responsible for his acts and omissions.
5. Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, we have observed that O.P No.1 has sold the said Laptop to the complainant which was used earlier and service calls were also logged against the said Laptop prior to date of invoice i.e. 26.10.15.

ORDER

O.P No.1 is found deficient in rendering service and making unfair trade practice. To meet the ends of justice the case is decided against O.P No.1.  O.P No.1 will refund a sum of Rs.40,500/- to the complainant and will collect the defective laptop from the complainant.  O.P No.1 will also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Thus O.P. No.1 will pay a sum of Rs.1,00,500/- to the complainant in total.

The above payment shall be made to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum again as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 17^th    day of August,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

                                                                                                                                        (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                               President.

                                                                                                                                         (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                  Member(W).