Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/108/2019

R Gukan - Complainant(s)

Versus

H P Care Services - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                           Date of Complaint Filed : 27.03.2019

                                           Date of Reservation      : 26.10.2022

                                            Date of Order               :22.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                  : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 108/2019

TUESDAY, THE 22^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

R.Gukan,

S/o. C.Ramasamy,

Represented by POA, C.Ramasamy,

AF4, Crystal Court,

44, Medavakkam Main Road,

Madipakkam,

Chennai-600091.                                                                                                                          …  Complainant

-Vs-

1. Manager (HP Care),

    Authorised Service Centre of HP Printers,

    Wipro Ltd C/o. Volta Technology Solutions,

    Door No.41/14, 1^st Floor,

    Shree Essarar Towers,

    Venkata Narayana Road,

    T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.

 

2. The Services Delivery Co-ordinator (HP),

    Chennai Region,

    No.41/14, 1^st Floor,

    Shree Essarar Towers,

    Venkatanarayana Road,

    T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017.                                                                                                             ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records, this Commission delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defective printer with a new one and to issue a New Warranty Statement (for one year) with the new printer to be installed and to ensure proper functioning of the new printer by a service engineer and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury, mental agony suffered by the customer due to negligence and deficiency of service along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had order a HP Printer model HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 3835 for a price of Rs.4999/- through Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd and the same was delivered on 16.10.2018 along with Invoice dated 13.10.2018 and HP Printer Limited Warranty Statement. On 18.10.2018 when he tried to take print out of a copy of a document, paper was jamming and he could not take print out. He lodged a complaint on 20.10.2018 to HP (1) Consumer Support and a case number was allotted through mail dated 22.10.2018 and it was informed that their service. engineers would contact. On 23.10.2018 a service engineer of Authorised service centre from T.Nagar, Chennai attended the service and on inspection informed that the paper jamming issue continues due to manufacturing defect and assured to replace within 5 days and to take back the defective printer. A service call letter dated 23.10.2018 was issued by the service centre mentioning if the same issue has occurred check HP team (doA). Since 27.10.2018 they made calls to the service centre about the delay in replacing the printer, for which, the manager had replied that the process is going for replacement of new printer, but no intimation till 04.11.2018. When the issue was taken to HP Support on 05.11.2018, it was informed to contact the Manager over phone, when contacted a team leader was introduced who assured to install a new printer on 07.11.2018 without fail. No information thereafter. Hence contacted the Manager on 07.11.2018 over phone and a representative of 1^st  Opposite Party informed a different stand that they would issue only DOA letter and the sales point (flipkart) to be contacted for replacement of defective printer. On receiving the said information he sent a detailed letter to the 1^st Opposite Party explaining the happenings and if the above said information would have been intimated at the time of inspection i.e., on 23.10.2018 or atleast on or before 26.10.2018, he could have contacted Flipkart, who would have replaced within a 10 days return period. And also had informed about their delay and deficiency of service and requested to install a new printer on or before 13.11.2018. In spite of receipt of the said letter on 09.11.2018, there was no response from the 1st Opposite Party. Hence took up the issue to the notice of CSS Service Head (HP) through mail dated 14.11.2018, who in turn had sent a reply mail dated 14.11.2018 wherein it was informed that they have ordered the printer ULR (unit level replacement) and once received they would schedule their engineer to replace the same on high priority basis. But the representative of the 1* Opposite Party had instructed him to contact the sales point for replacement and installation of new printer with one year warranty. Since there was no positive response he had again taken up the issue to HP CSS Escalation through mail dated 22.11.2018 and requested for replacement within a week with a compensation of Rs.6,000/-. To his surprise and contrary to the assurance made by HP official, a mail dated 27.11.2018 was received wherein it was mentioned that they had received approval for DOA and DOA letter was also forwarded and informed to contact the sales person to proceed further. A revised DOA letter was sent through mail dated 29.11.2018 by the 1^st Opposite Party.

Having not been satisfied with the said reply, contacted HP status through a helpline where he was asked to contact the Service Delivery Coordinator (HP), Chennai Region, the officer who would solve customer grievances. Hence a detailed letter dated 29.11.2018 along with copy of earlier letter dated 08.11.2018 was sent to the said officer and also to the 1st Opposite Party, wherein requested for replacement and installation of a new printer early, for one year warranty and to arrange a service engineer to ensure proper functioning of the new printer and the said letter sent through speed post was delivered on 30.11.2018. On 01.12.2018 he had received a mail from HP wherein it was ensured that their team would contact him and resolve the issue, but nobody contacted him. Again he sent a letter dated 30.12.2018 to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, in spite of the receipt of the same on 31.12.2018, there was no response. Hence had sent a mail dated 05.01.2019 to HP CSS Service Head that the defective printer was not replaced till date, for which a reply mail by Service Head HP on 05.01.2019 stating their team would reach the next working day on priority basis. Further the Case Manager, Customer Relations HP Service Support sent a mail on 08.01.2019 requesting him to send the copy of invoice and DOA letter, to support further, in spite of providing the required details, no one from HP reached him and resolved his issue. Thereafter contacted Flipkart by providing all the details including DOA letter, Flipkart by reply mail dated 13.01.2019 informed him that there was no response from Brand side, le., HP side. The 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Party had failed to repair or replace his Printer and HP had failed to fulfill their obligations as detailed in Sl.No.6 and 7 of the terms and conditions of HP Printer Limited Warranty Statement. As nowhere mentioned in the Warranty statement to get the relief from the Sales point, advising him to contact the sales point was total violation of its responsibilities, even when the sales point, Flipkart was contacted at their advice, it was informed that there was no response from HP side. Even the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had not responded to his letter dated 03.02.2019, in spite of receipt on 05.02.2019. As the printer could not be utilised from the date of purchase, for more than 10 months, the acts of the Opposite Parties caused him and his family members with disappointment, worries and serious mental agony. The above facts would clearly show the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties at highest degree. Hence the Complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-22 were marked.       In spite of sufficient notice served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party failed to appear before this commission and they have been called absent and set Ex-parte.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1

It is an Undisputed fact that the Complainant purchased HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 3835 printer from the Opposite Parties for a price of Rs.4999/- through Flipkart Internet Private Limited, vide Invoice No.FABCF11900012784 dated 13.10.2018 and delivered on 16.10.2018 as per Ex.A-2 with a limited warranty period as follows , 90 days for software media and 1 year hardware warranty for printer or ink cartridges as found in Ex.A-3. On 18.10.2018 as the Complainant finds it difficult to take printout with the above printer hence made a complaint to the HP Consumer Support through Helpline on 20.10.2018 which in return the Opposite Parties assigned the authorised service engineer to address the technical difficulty with the case number.5022012937 / BNBW2685-01 in its email dated 22.10.2018 as per Ex.A-4. On 23.10.2018 the HP service engineer inspected the said printer and informed that the paper jam issue was due to manufacturing defect and a new printer would be replaced in 5 days by taking back the defective printer and left a note in the service call report as per Ex.A-5 confirming the printer defectiveness. Since the defective printer was not replaced by the service centre within 5 days, the Complainant and his father contacted the service centre many times over phone but there is no response whatsoever by any of them instead just assuring that the printer will be replaced in a short time. On 05.11.2018 the Complainant took this matter to the HP Helpline about the delay in replacing the printer. In return the officer advised to contact Mrs.Kalai manager via phone No. 044.48525447 and came to know that the team was working on this issue and a new printer would be installed on 07.11.2018 without fail even the service engineer Thiru.Kumuraesan also assured the same. However there is no response from the service station moreover the 1st Opposite Party Mr.Ashokkumar of Volta Tech Solution T.Nagar service centre informed that they would issue only DOA letter by that the Complainant should arrange for defective printer replacement by contacting the Flipkart sales point, hence on 08.11.2018 the Complainant sent a written complaint to the 2nd Opposite Party HP Service centre Manager T.Nagar stating the above incidence and the failure of replacement assurance which has been in long pending i.e from 23.10.2018 as found in Ex.A-6.

        Even after the complaint there is no response from the service engineer team leader and the Manager service centre the Complainant took up this issue to the knowledge of HP CSS Service Head through email dated 14.11.2018 briefing the lethargic attitude of the service centre in addressing the persistent issue without resolving by not taking necessary action in replacing the printer as found in Ex.A-7. In reply to the above mail dated 14.11.2018 by the HP css escalation team stated that replacement printer to the Complainant have been ordered once received they will schedule the engineers on the highest priority to replace the same as seen in Ex.A-8. In this context replying to the Complainant mail dated 14.11.2018 by Mr.Ashok Kumar from TN Volta Tech Solutions confessed that during the course of interaction over phone along with Complainant and Mr.Nathan team leader in HP T.Nagar service centre regarding the declaration of DOA i.e the replacement approval letter were attached for reference, henceforth directed the Complainant to contact the sales team from where he purchased by returning the defective printer along with the enclosed letter by that the Complainant can get the new printer from the sales point with 1 year warranty as found in Ex.A-9. As the problem resurfaced the Complainant again sent an email dated 22.11.2018 to css.escalation team narrating the failure commitments given by the both the Opposite Parties in the means of new printer replacement and execution of DOA letter by conveying the dissatisfaction and urging them to replace the printer within a week of time and also sought the compensation of Rs.6000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony caused by wasting the valuable time and money by demonstrating the displeasure towards the Opposite Parties service in replacing the defective printer as found in Ex.A-10.

Nevertheless the Ex.A-11 & A-12 are such mail communications received from the Opposite Parties by ascertaining the false assurance and wrong commitment dated 27.11.2018 & 29.11.2018. After the dissatisfaction on the service of the Opposite Parties the Complainant contacted the HP status through helpline and upon the advice of a concerned officer wrote a letter to the services delivery coordinator HP , Chennai i.e Ex.A-13 dated 29.11.2018 furnishing the grievances. Simultaneously similar mails & letters were also sent by the Complainant to the concerned Opposite Parties dated 30.11.2018 and 30.12.2018 by explaining the unresolved issue and the timeline taken to address the same as seen in EX.A-14 & A-15 respectively. Inspite of receipt of the letters there was no response from the Opposite Parties, hence Complainant sent a mail to both the Opposite Parties i.e HP CSS service head & Flipkart dated 05.01.2019 stating that the service job No.BNBW 26850 was unresolved even after 40 days neither by servicing the defective printer nor replaced it as seen in Ex.A-16 & Ex.A-20 respectively. Replying to the same, the Service head HP on 05.01.2019 assured that their team will reach out the next working day on a priority basis as found in Ex.A-17. Another subsequent mail from the Opposite Party marked as Ex.A-18 dated 08.01.2019 denotes the discussion to resolve the issue by asking the Complainant to share the DOA certificate for which the Complainant replied to the above mail dated 08.01.2019 enclosing the DOA certificate and invoice copy as seen in Ex.A-19 by expecting a timely resolution. Replying to the Complainant mail i.e Ex.A-20, Flipkart informed that there was no response from the Brand side i.e HP Company by evading their responsibility as seen in Ex.A-21 dated 13.01.2019. The Complainant took this issue to the Opposite Parties by writing a letter to all the concerned parties i.e Ex.A-22 dated 03.02.2019 who failed to address the issue by staying away from their responsibilities instead dragging the liability on Flipkart is a total violation. For more than 10 months the Complainant could not utilise the printer from the date of purchase due to deficiency of service by the opposite parties is Unjustifiable. On a careful observation upon the Complainants persisting and unresolved issue it is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties were indulged in a series of failure commitments even after plenty of assurances in replacing the defective printer is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Moreover as per the HP Limited Warranty terms & conditions as seen in Ex.A-3 the Sl.No 6 & 7 it is admissible that on findings of defective product during the applicable warranty period HP shall either repair or replace the product failing which within a reasonable time after being notified of the defect, refund the purchase price for the product. Whereas the Opposite Parties herein failed to comply with their own terms and conditions are liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.    

Point Nos.2 and 3:-  

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and the Opposite Parties are  liable to replace the defective HP Printer Model HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 3835 with one year warranty and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the  deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective HP Printer Model HP Deskjet Ink Advantage 3835 with one year warranty and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for the  deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 22^nd of November 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	27.03.2019	General power of Attorney
Ex.A2	13.10.2018	Invoice issued by  Flipkart
Ex.A3	-	HP Printer Limited Warranty Statement
Ex.A4	22.10.2018	e-mail letter of HP Trusted Advisor
Ex.A5	23.10.2018	Service call Report issued by HP Care Authorised Service Centre
Ex.A6	08.11.2018	Complainant Written Letter dated 08.11.2018 addressed to the Manger, Service Centre
Ex.A7	14.11.2018	E-mail letter of Complainant addressed to the HP Service Head
Ex.A8	14.11.2018	E-mail letter of HP Escalation @ Wipro.com addressed to the Complainant
Ex.A9	14.11.2018	E-mail letter of Ashokkumar TN Volta addressed to the Complainant
Ex.A10	22.11.2018	E-mail letter of Complainant addressed to HP Escalation @ Wipro.com
Ex.A11	27.11.2018	E-mail letter of HP CSS escalation @ Wipro.com addressed to the Complainant
Ex.A12	29.11.2018	E-mail letter of Ashokkumar TN Volta addressed to the Complainant
Ex.A13	29.11.2018	Complainant Written Letter addressed to the Service Delivery Co-ordinator, Chennai Region with POD
Ex.A14	30.11.2018 and 01.12.2018	E-mail Letter of Complainant addressed to CSS Service Head and Vice Versa
Ex.A15	30.12.2018	Complainant Written Letter to the Manager, Service Centre and the Services Delivery Co-ordionator with POD
Ex.A16	05.01.2019	Complainants E-mail Letter addressed to CSS Service Head
Ex.A17	05.01.2019	E-mail letter of CSS Service Head to the Complainant
Ex.A18	08.01.2019	E-mail letter of Case Manager, Customer Relations - HP to Complainant
Ex.A19	08.01.2019	E-mail Letter of Complainant to Mr.Suraj, Case Manager
Ex.A20	05.01.2019	E-mail Letter of Complaint addressed to Flipkart
Ex.A21	13.01.2019	E-mail letter of Flipkart to the Complainant
Ex.A22	03.02.2019	Complainant's Written Letter addressed to the Manager, Service Centre and the Services Delivery Co- ordinator, Chennai Region with POD

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT