The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that on 30.06.2017 he purchased a HP branded laptop “15-AY-566TU” from Galaxy Computech Pvt. Ltd./opposite party no. 1 for sum of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand) only (Exhibit no. 1). After purchase, the complainant found white patches on the screen of the laptop. He also found that the laptop was generating excessive heat and the battery was becoming exhausted early. On 13.07.2022 the complainant brought the defect of the laptop to the notice of the opposite party no. 1 who advised him to approach opposite party no. 2 for replacement of the defective laptop.
On 31.07.2017, the complainant dispatched the laptop to a HP service centre/ opposite party no. 3 but the opposite party no. 3 did not arrange to replace the defective laptop. So the complainant took back the defective laptop from opposite party no. 3 on 04.08.2017 (Exhibit no. 2). The complainant again visited opposite party no. 1 on 04.08.2017 for replacement of the defective laptop, but no fruitful result yielded. Thereafter, the complainant sent letters to the opposite party no. 2 for replacement of defective laptop but to no result.
Having no other option, the complainant filed a complaint before the Assistant Director (CGRC) where the representative of opposite party no. 2 promised to replace the defective laptop within 7 days but it has not been replaced by opposite party no. 2. The complainant was compelled to file the instant case.
The opposite party no. 1 filed written version in this case and stated that they have sold a brand new laptop to the complainant. It is mentioned in their purchase invoice that the role of opposite party no. 1 ends after selling of the laptop and all warrantee issues are handled by the Principal Company. After filing of the written version opposite party no. 1 has preferred not to contest the case.
Opposite party no. 2 filed written version on 14.11.2019 and stated that all the products manufactured by the opposite party are put through stringent quality checks before being cleared for dispatch to the market. Whenever any product is reported to a service centre, for any repair, standard checks are carried out and observation is recorded by the Service Engineer on the job card. The Service Engineer of the service centre, has adequate training to provide proper job explanation of the work to be carried out and even provides tests to the customers at the time of delivery of the product. The opposite party categorically stated that the allegation of the complainant that the laptop suffers from manufacturing defect is baseless and unjustified. The warrantee benefit provided by the opposite party on the laptop in question was for a defined period and it does not provide any service/remedy available after expiry of the stipulated warrantee period free of costs. According to the opposite party the laptop in question was provided with hardware warrantee for a period of one year from the date of purchase. It was further stated by the opposite party that on the basis of complaint dated 02.08.2017 and 03.08.2017 loged by the complainant, the service team of the opposite party primarily attended the complaints and offered to resolve the reported issue by replacing display panel free of costs as an exceptional case but the complainant refused the offer and demanded instant replacement of the entire laptop. According to the opposite party there was no manufacturing defect with the unique model and it was working as per specification As such the demand of the complainant for replacement of entire laptop is not sustainable. As the opposite party immediately after receiving complaints tried to address the same as per warrantee terms and conditions, there is no deficiency in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, damages or litigation cost as prayed and the complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed.
In order to prove the pleadings both the parties submitted their respective evidence and replies to the questionnaire of each other on affidavit. The complainant also filed original documents i.e. purchase bill of laptop (exhibit no. 1) service call report of opposite party no. 3 (Exhibit 2), letter dated 10.10.2017 of the complainant addressed to Assistant Director of CGRC (Exhibit 3), letter dated 26.10.2017 and 01.02.2017 issued by Director CGRC addressed to opposite party no. 2 (Exhibit 4 & 4(a).
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for discussion and determination :
- Is the complainant a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
- Has this commission jurisdiction to try the case?
- Is the case barred by limitation?
- Are the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to a final order/judgment as prayed for?
- To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
DECISION WIH REASONS
It appears from the record that the complainant has filed affidavit in chief and reply of cross examination on affidavit. The case has been proceeded ex-parte as against opposite party no. 1 Galaxy Computech Pvt. Ltd. and opposite party no. 3 HP Service Center.
The opposite party no. 2 Hewlett – Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. filed affidavit in chief but the complainant has not chosen to cross examine opposite party no. 2 by filing questionnaire though several dates were fixed for it.
Point nos. 1, 2 and 3
All the above referred three points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
In course of argument the opposite party no.2 did not raise any objection against the above three points.
On perusal of the materials on record I find that the complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. That apart, this Commission has jurisdiction to try the case and the case is not barred by limitation.
Therefore, all the three points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Point nos. 4, 5 and 6
For the sake for brevity and convenience all the three points are taken up together for discussion.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a laptop on 30.06.2017 of H. P. brand from opposite party no. 1 at a price of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand) only (Exhibit-1). It is further admitted fact that after purchase of the laptop, defect i.e. white patches detected on the screen of the laptop.
It is also admitted fact that the complainant took the laptop to H. P. Service Centre/opposite party no. 3 on 31.07.2017 (Exhibit-2).
It is the claim of the complainant that the said laptop has inherent manufacturing defect and as the same was defected within the warranty period he demanded replacement of the laptop with a new one. The opposite party no. 3 denied to replace the defective laptop with a new one, so the complainant opted to take it back.
On the other hand opposite party no. 2 denied that the laptop had any inherent manufacturing defect. According to them the hard disk of the laptop had no manufacturing defect and had some white patches. The complainant lodged complaint on 02.08.2017 and 03.08.2017 and immediately the service team of opposite party no. 2 attended the complaints offered to solve the problem by replacing the display panel of the lap top treating the complainant’s case as an exceptional one they offered such replacement free of cost with warranty. The complainant refused the offer of opposite party no. 2 and insisted upon with replacement of the entire laptop/Note Book which was not feasible and/or permissible as per terms of the warranty policy of opposite party no. 2.
It is needless to say that onus is on the complainant to prove that as per terms of warranty of the laptop/note book, the opposite party no. 2 is liable to replace the laptop with a new one.
In this case we, find the complainant has not produced the warranty card in evidence in support of his case. No expert opinion was sought for by the complainant to prove that the laptop suffers from manufacturing defect. Moreover, though several dates were fixed, the complainant has not cross-examined the opposite party no. 2 by filing any questionnaire. So the evidence of opposite party no. 2 that there was no defect in the hard ware of the laptop/Note Book and replacement is not feasible or permissible as per warranty terms of opposite party no. 2 remained unchallenged and un-rebutted in the case.
In view of the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not been able to prove that the laptop/note book had any manufacturing defect and as per warrantee the opposite party is liable to replace the same with a new one.
Therefore, point nos.4, 5 and 6 are decided against the complainant.
Thus the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.
