Date of filing:  04.12.2017                                                        Date of Disposal: 18.04.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,     BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3113/2017

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Smt. Usha T.N,

W/o. Sri. Prasad,

Aged About 44 years,

Residing at No.02, Nele,

Indiragandhi Road,

Pattanagere,

(Rep by Sri. V.K.Ramesha, Advocate)

1) Digital Reliance Retail Limited,

Represented by its Chairman,

Having its branch retail shop at

No.622, 80 feet Road,

Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi

(Rep. by Sri. Keerthi Prasad. D.C., Advocate)

2. H.P PPS Service India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through its

Managing Director,

Salarpuria GR Tech Park,

Akash Block/Katha No.69/3,

Whitefield Road,

(Rep. by Geetha B.S., Advocate)

3) HP. IQOR,

Represented through its

Authorized Signatory/Managing Director,

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011.

(Placed Ex-parte)

4) HP. Volta Technology Solutions

Private Limited, Represented

Through its Authorized Signatory/

Managing Director, House No.77,

(Placed Ex-parte)……  OPPOSITE PARTIES.

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the laptop amount to the complainant of Rs.43,162.25 and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.    Opposite party No.3 & 4 are placed Ex-parte.

03.    It is not in dispute that, the opposite party No.1 is the retailer, opposite party No.2 is the company and opposite party No.3 & 4 are the service centres.  Further it is not in dispute that, on 16.01.2017 the complainant had purchased a Laptop from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.43,162.25 in the model Laptop LAPTOP Model & Product No. HP-15-ab516tx/T0259PA.  Further it is not in dispute that, since there was problem in the system the complainant informed to the opposite party and handed-over the laptop to opposite party No.3 service centre in the month of July-2017.

04.    It is the further case of the complainant that, even in-spite of complainant got serviced, the laptop problem has not been rectified.  Hence the opposite party had shown very negligent in resolving the problem.  Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint came to be filed.

05.    It is the further case of the opposite party No.1 that, the complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hands and has been trying to evade payment of monthly instalments of loan that she had availed from opposite party No.1.  Further the complainant had purchased the laptop on 16.01.2017 with the warranty period in terms of good assurance assured by opposite party No.1 and also given an assurance to give good service to the complainant.  Further Opposite party No.2 to 4 are liable to pay compensation and other incidental awards since opposite party No.1 was only a seller and has only limited liability as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the receipt book.

06.    It is the further case of the opposite party No.2 that, opposite party had checked the product with regard to its quality before it is dispatched to the authorised channel partner for sale on a ‘principal to principal’ basis.  Further the laptop purchased by the complainant was a well established product in the market and over a period of years.  Further the subject laptop had standard warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and as on the date the complaint raised the Laptop was out of warranty period.  Further the Laptop in question was reported for issues and the service team of opposite party No.2 had promptly attended to the issues reported.  Further opposite party No.2 is ready and willing to diagnose and resolve the issues if any in the laptop and the complainant is at liberty to approach opposite party No.2 or its customer care and to get the issues resolved as per the terms of the warranty.  Further there is no ground for the relief sought by the complainant Under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Further there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant.  Hence, sought to dismiss the complaint.

07.    To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.13 documents.  The Store Manager of opposite party No.1 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and the Authorized Signatory of opposite party No.2 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

08     Counsels for complainant and opposite party No.2 have filed their respective written arguments.

09.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

      (3) What order ?

10.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

11.    POINT NO.1:-  The complainant (PW.1) and opposite party No.1 & 2 (RW.1 & RW.2) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

12.    It is contended by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that, the onus lies on the complainant to show that, the reliefs as contemplated Under Section 14 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant.  The complainant sought for refund of the Laptop amount paid to the opposite party.  It is the allegation of the complainant that, even in-spite of she had given a Laptop for service, the service centre was not able to rectify the issue in question.  According to her in the month of July-2017 she found problem in the laptop and the complainant had handed-over the laptop to the opposite party No.3 service centre and the Engineer at there, told her that, he was not able to install O.S. from new recovery DVDS, and the service manager at there had given an endorsement of repair on 20.07.2017 stating that, found problem with 3^rd DVD Error, Need to order recovery DVD from H.P.  The complainant has produced the said service call record dated: 20.07.2017 vide EX.P.3. 

13.    Further after the service call record from opposite party, she ordered for new DVD and on 31.07.2017 opposite party service Engineer visited and find a problem again and mentioned in the report that, he tried to recover the PC and it cannot be done again and it shown error and once again ordered new HDD from H.P. Tech support.  The complainant has produced the said report dated: 31.07.2017 vide EX.P.4. 

14.    Further on 03.08.2017 again the opposite party service Engineer visited and diagnosed the Laptop after replacing new HDD it was also Jam getting error while recovering the Laptop, hence he had collected the Laptop from the complainant for proper service.  In support of the same the complainant had produced the service call report vide EX.P.5.

15.    Further on 18.08.2017 the opposite party had handed-over the Laptop with an assurance that, system was working properly, thereafter again the complainant noticed that, there was a problem in the Laptop and the service was not done properly and on 05.09.2017 again the complainant called the opposite party and the opposite party had collected the Laptop again.  In support the same, the complainant has produced EX.P.6 & EX.P.7 service call report.  Further there were email communication in between the complainant and opposite party No.2 to 4 vide EX.P.13 (27 sheets).  The opposite party did not dispute the email correspondence and opposite party No.3 also did not dispute with regard to the Laptop been collected for service. 

16.    Further the complainant got issued legal notice vide EX.P.9 with regard to the negligence in repairing the Laptop.  Even then the problem has not been rectified.  Further email sent by opposite party dated: 13.10.2017 indicates that, the opposite parties technical team has been working on the case.  On perusal of the entire email sent in between the parties it appears that, the problem has not been solved.  Hence we feel the issue is relating to manufacturing defect in the laptop and Section 14(1)(b) & (c) contemplates with regard to the replace of the goods with new goods of the similar description which is very free from any defect or to return to the complainant the price as the case may be the charges paid by the complainant.  Hence there is no merit in the contention of opposite party that, the issue raised by the complainant in respect of laptop does not cover within the meaning of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

17.    It is the further contention of learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that, since the service has been rendered from time to time and it was satisfactory, there is no deficiency of service as established in the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.  We feel since several correspondences been made by the complainant and repeatedly kept on registering the complaint with the opposite party to fulfil her legal demands on 21.09.2017 and 12.10.2017 as to the clarification and rectification of the issue and to solve the problem, but the opposite parties deliberately did not solve the problem.  Hence we feel there is defect in the product and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as contemplated Under Section 2(f) & (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly we answer point No.1 in affirmative.

12.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant claimed for refund of Laptop price of Rs.43,162=95.  The complainant has produced the receipt for having paid the said sum of money to opposite party No.1 vide EX.P.1 & EX.P.2 receipts.  We feel the complainant is entitle for refund of the same and in-turn the complainant shall hand-over the said Laptop to the opposite party No.1 retailer from whom the complainant had purchased. 

13.    Further complainant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  According to PW.1 she was working as administrator and teacher in Excellent Kids and was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and the Laptop was required for her deputed work and it was very much necessary and mandatory apart from her employment she had also joined job oriented course 3ds MAX on 15.12.2016 by paying fee of Rs.9,500/- in “CADD FOCUS” and to do the said course Lap top was very much required.  Hence she has purchased the Laptop with an ambition of better future, but due to the negligent and deficiency in providing proper service by the opposite parties the complainant could not be able to complete the course.  Hence the complainant had suffered monitory loss as well as mental agony and humiliation.  In support of the said fact the complainant has produced EX.P.10 letter of appointment dated: 01.05.2017 and cash receipt vide EX.P.11 for having paid the fee of Rs.9,500/- to CADD FOCUS.  We feel the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and monitory loss sustained. 

14.    Further the act of the opposite party made complainant to get issued legal notice and approach this Commission for the relief in question.  Hence the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

15.    Further the complainant is entitle for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the laptop price from the date purchase i.e., on 16.01.2017 till realization.  Further the complainant is entitle for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation and the litigation cost from the date of the order till realization.  Accordingly we answer this Point partly in affirmative.

16.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.43,162=95 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 16.01.2017 till realization and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  The complainant shall return the Laptop to the opposite party No.1.

The parties shall comply the order within 30 days.   In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 18^th Day of April, 2023)                                             

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Smt. Usha T.N., the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents submitted by the complainant side:

1. Original Laptop purchase bill dt.16.01.2017-EX.P.1.
2. Receipt of HDFC Bank – EX.P.2.
3. Service call report dt.20.07.2017 – EX.P.3
4. Copy of service call report dt.31.07.2017 – EX.P.4
5. Copy of another service call report dt.03.08.2017 – EX.P.5
6. Copy of service call report dt.18.08.2017 – EX.P.6
7. Copy of service call report dt. NIL – EX.P.7
8. Legal notice dt.21.09.2017 – EX.P.8
9. Original postal receipts – EX.P.8(a)
10. Another legal notice dt.12.10.2017 – EX.P.9
11. Original postal receipts – EX.P.9(a)
12. Appointment letter dt.01.05.2017 – EX.P.10
13. Certificate U/s 65(B) of Evidence Act – EX.P.12.
14. Email communication between complainant and OP Nos.2 to 4 – EX.P.13.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side:   

Sri. Deepak .H.T., Store Manager of opposite party No.1 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.1 side:

- NIL –

Witness examined for the opposite party No.2 to 4 side:    

- NIL –

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 side:

- NIL –

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•