By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant Mr. Prathap.H. has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had purchased the H.P. Pavilion Note Book on second week of September 2007 from the dealer ie. Opposite party-1. The complainant alleges that the system was defective from the day of purchase itself. Complainant has given the details of the defects that has occurred to the system extending to 7 pages in detail. He had informed the problems of the system, poor performance of the note book P.C. right from August last week of 2007. The dealer refused to take back the product. Both the service centers at Kozhikode and Bangalore failed to identify the real problem with the product. The complainant had requested the opposite party to refund the amount expended for purchasing the computer as it was not functioning. The opposite party did not either rectify the problems or refund the money as requested by the complainant. Right from the beginning of the purchase complainant had faced problems for the system including the board, memory, drive etc. As the opposite parties did not attend the complaints of the complainant on time he has filed the petition before the Forum seeking relief and compensation. After issuing notice opposite party-1, 2 and 3 were represented on 22-11-08. For the later postings opposite party-2 had offered to replace the computer with a fresh piece. From the very beginning opposite party-2, manufacturer had offered for a settlement by replacing the computer but the complainant was not ready. Meanwhile on 18-6-09 as the opposite paprty-1,2,3 were not present to cross examine the complainant. Opposite parties were called absent and set exparte. Opposite party-2 filed I.A. 138/09 to reopen the case, which was allowed on a term of cost of Rs.1000/-, opposite party-2 paid the cost on 11-8-09 and cross examined the complainant. Opposite party-2 had filed a version denying all the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-2 admits the fact that the complainant purchased the H.P. Pavilion note book from opposite party-1 the authorized dealer of opposite party-2. Opposite party-2 submits that complainant has not produced the original bill and warranty card. The complainant has not proved that the component of the system purchased by him is manufactured by the second opposite party. If any defects had occurred it would be due to fungus infection, mishandling of the equipment and inexperienced handling and also due to many other external factors. This complainant had lodged three complaints on various dates and issues reported were resolved. The opposite party had rectified the complaints pointed out by the complainant. No other complaints were lodged. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Opposite party-2 also submitted that the company is ready to attend and resolve the issue as per the warranty. The complainant is not entitled to get back the value of the system or any compensation. Opposite party-2 prays to dismiss the complaint with costs. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence for the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one H.P. Pavilion note book along with accessories for an amount of Rs.57000/-. According to the complainant from the day of purchase the system showed problems. Complainant had informed the opposite party regularly about the problems of the computer. The case of the complainant is that the performance of the system was very poor. He had informed the opposite party to rectify the defects. But the opposite party did not respond to the complaints of the complainant. They did not attend and rectify the defects. The complainant was constantly informing the opposite party regarding various problems. Opposite party did not give a prompt reply or attend the complaints. Hence the complainant informed the opposite party-2 to refund the amount. Opposite party did not furnish original bill and warranty card which would show the date of sale and the year of warranty. Whenever the complainant informed the opposite party regarding any problem opposite party had rectified the defects immediately. Complainant had raised an issue that he did not receive the free gift offered by the opposite party. But second opposite party stated that the free gift to the complainant was sent on 5th January 2008 through First Flight Courier vide AWB No. DO1377096. But the same was returned on 12th February stating that the addressee is not known. Opposite party-2 did not get any fresh address of the complainant to redespatch the gift. According to the opposite party-2 the complainant has not taken any expert opinion to prove that there were any manufacturing defects. Opposite party-2 were ready and willing to replace the system from the very beginning of this case. On 1-9-08 the date on which opposite party-2 had appeared for the first time they had expressed their willingness to settle the matter and subsequently opposite party was always ready to settle, but the complainant was unwilling. According to the complainant he had informed the opposite party several times regarding the problems and defects but the opposite party did not respond. Hence the complainant is seeking for refund of the amount along with compensation. As the opposite party were willing to replace the system with a fresh one and also the complainant had not taken any expert opinion about the defects in the computer, we cannot allow prayer of the complainant by directing the opposite party to refund the amount of the system. On a perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it could be seen that on several occasions he had reported the opposite party regarding several problems of the computer. In the version itself opposite party-2 has admitted that the complainant had lodged three complaints on various dates. Opposite party-2 had attended these complaints and the problems were rectified. The memory was replaced and note book was working fine. Which means the computer had shown certain problems. In this circumstance we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get a defect free fresh piece. In the result the petition is allowed to the extend that the opposite parties are directed to provide the complainant with latest addition of a fresh defect free computer to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. Pronounced in the open court this the 11th day of February 2010. Sd/- PRESIDENT Sd/- MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of cash bill dt. 10-8-07. A2. Photocopy of letter dt. 18-8-07. A3. Detailed BSNL Telephone bill dt. 5-4-08. A4. Photocopy of Labels providing system details and customer care HP address. A5. Photocopy of System cover table with disparity in serial No. A6. Photocopy of H.P. Warranty booklet copy. A7. Photocopy of letter dt. 12-10-07. A8. Photocopy of letter dt. 15-04-08. A9. Photocopy of letter dt. 07-08-08 A10. Photocopy Speed post Delivery receipt. A11. Photocopy of letter. A12. Photocopy of letter. A13. Photocopy of letter. A14. Photocopy of letter. A15. Photocopy of letter. A16. Photocopy of letter. A17. Photocopy of letter. A18. Photocopy of E.Mail from Walter-j.bright@hp.com. A19 Photocopy of system taken in for reporting slips from H.P. Services, Bangalore. A20. Photocopy of system taken in for reporting slips from H.P. Services, Bangalore. A21. Photocopy of Material Acceptance Receipt (MAR) dt. 24-6-08. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the complainant. PW1. Prathapan.H. (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite aparty. None Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. | 
