This complaint under C.P. Act., 1986 was initially filed against O.P. No.- 1, Computer Plaza, Choudhury Cottage, M.G.Road, Beguntari, besides Central Girls High School, P.O, & P. S. - Jalpaiguri, District- Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101,   West Bengal.  O.P. No.- 2, HP India Corporate Office, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Hosur Road, P.O.- Vimanapura, P.S- Old Airport Police Station, Pin Code- 560017, State- Karnataka and O.P. No.- 3,  HP Laptop Service Centre, Sudhir Bhaduri Road, Shop No.- 33/37, Kiran Niwas, 1^st Floor, Near Kanchenjunga Stadium, Opposite Lane Hotel Sevokevally residing, Siliguri, P.O.- Mahananda Bridge, P.S.- Bhaktinagar Police Station, District- Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, State- West Bengal and O.P. No.- 2 contested the case by filing Written Version.

The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-

The complainant purchased a HP laptop NB DA0352TU, Serial No.- CND9243SRR, Product No.- 5XD50PA from Computer Plaza, Choudhury Cottege, Beguntari, Jalpaiguri on 12/08/2019 for a sum of Rs. 30,300/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and three hundred only), on terms and conditions contained in the warranty card given by the respondent and after 2 (two) months he found a black spot on the display of the laptop. The complainant had also mentioned in his complaint, that the warranty period of the laptop was 09 (nine) months which was from 22^nd June, 2019 till 20^th August, 2020.

The complainant argued that on 25^th October, 2019 he had given the laptop to the O.P. for servicing, as the damage had occurred within the warranty period. O.P. had taken the laptop under the case ID 5039599561 but the laptop had not been repaired and handed over to the complainant on 21/11/2019, in the same condition and the cause of action arose on 25^th October, 2019 when the complainant had given the laptop to the, O.P., for making service and also on 21/11/2019 when the O.P. i.e. the service centre return the laptop to the complainant without giving any service.

The complainant also argued that all of a sudden, he received a mail from Dipankar, on behalf of the O.P. mentioning that after the process of investigation and diagnosis, the service representative found that the part (display panel) defect is due to unintentional damage and the standard warranty does not extend to any HP Hardware Product that has been damaged or rendered defective as a result of accident, misuse, liquid spills, abuse, contamination or other external causes. It is also mentioned in the mail that the replacement or failed part could be provided, on a chargeable basis.

The complainant also argued that he was entitled, to get replacement of the faulty goods and had suffered loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice.

The complainant therefore prays for-

1. An order directing the O.P. to replace the faulty goods and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation.
2. Pass any other such order, as this Honorable Commission may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
3. Costs of the present complaint and proceedings be paid by respondent to the complainant. The value of the complaint is sum of Rs. 30,300/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and three hundred only).

The documents filed by the Complainant in support of her claim are as follows -

Annex 1 - (1) The purchase bill.

Annex 2 - (2) Warranty details.

Annex 3 - (3) Mail received from the service centre.                                    

 O.P. No.-2, HP India Corporate Office, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Hosur Road, P.O.- Vimanapura, P.S- Old Airport Police Station, Pin Code- 560017, State- Karnataka contested the case and as per his Written Version (W.V.) the case is as follows -

The O.P.- 2 argued in his W.V., that the present complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts, as the claim made by the complainant against the said O.P. is not lawful, proper and bonafide and this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine the instant complaint as the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 are not attracted against the said O.P.-2. The O.P. also added that there is no cause of action against this O.P. and as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

The O.P.-2 also argued that the complainant has filed this case against the O.P. with an ulterior motive to derive unlawful pecuniary gain based upon falsehood and figment of imagination beyond comprehension and as per the settled position of law, the point of maintainability must be decided at the first instance by the Consumer Commission before considering the merit of a case.

The O.P.-2 also argued that the issue reported is due to the internal damage caused and such issues are not covered under the warranty or not eligible for free of costs repair, the service team of the O.P.-2 had communicated the same to the complainant and offered repair on chargeable basis as per the warranty obligations.

The O.P.-2 also argued that any physical damage that may be caused to a product primarily due to improper usage by the customer is not covered under the terms of warranty and this has issued and provided to the complainant when the product is sold to the consumer and the fact was informed to the complainant and it was also informed that as such cases are not covered under warranty and hence the repairs are not possible as per the terms of the warranty though the laptop was within the warranty period.

The O.P.-2 prayed that since the complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case against him, the instant complaint of the complainant be kindly dismissed against the O.P.-2. He also strenuously denied that the said laptop having any inherent manufacturing defect, in absence of the expert report or any case of deficiency in service is established against the O.P.-2. The O.P.-2 also submitted that the averments/ prayer are bald, frivolous, misconceived and made without any merit and the instant complaint merits dismissal with costs.

The documents filed by the O.P.  are as follows -

 (1) Photocopy of the mail reply.

 (2) Two printouts of the display unit.

Points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
4. Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?                                                                                                                       

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

The case is heard ex- parte against the O.P.-1, Computer Plaza, Choudhury Cottage, M.G.Road, Beguntari, Besides Central Girls High School, Post and P. S. - Jalpaiguri, District- Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, West Bengal. The O.P.-2 has contested the case by filing W.V.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version, filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We have also heard arguments advanced by both parties in full length.

 Most of the times the O.P number 1&2 are jointly appear before this commission and made submission jointly through Ld. Advocate. In this case, the O.P-2 repudiated the claim of the complainant, by stating that the service is not free, it is chargeable as because any physical damage that may be caused to a product primarily due to improper usage by the customer is not covered under the terms of warranty.

On the other hand, the O.P-2 had not filed any witness or any expert report that the product was damaged by the complement due to mishandling. Rather, they had only sent a letter to the complainant mentioning that the product was damaged by the complainant unintentionally.

In view of the above discussion we may come to the conclusion that the O.P.s are guilty for deficiency in services and the service provided by the O.P.s  were not up to the mark.

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as specified bellow.

All points are disposed of. In the result the case/ application succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

            That the Consumer Case No. 47/2019 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.P.-2 and 3 and ex- parte against O.P.-1 without cost. The O.P.-2 and 3 are jointly or severely directed to repair the faulty part of the laptop with new parts and with extended warranty within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put the order in execution according to provision of law.        

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.