BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 24^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint represented through their authorized agent U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to replace the defective Laptop or in the alternative to refund Rs.25,000/- being cost of the Laptop together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant Neelakanteshwara Palla during his visit on deputation to New Jersey (USA) purchased a HP Laptop on 29.09.2013 in USA, covered with additional warranty of two years against the requisite payment for the use of his son who is first year PUC student at Bangalore.  That the said Laptop has worldwide warranty.  That the Laptop failed to boot though it was hardly used for 10 days.  That on 08.07.2014, the complainant contacted HP Customer Care, Bangalore where the complaint has been registered with No.4731946704 with future reference.  That the Bangalore office asked for the details of the product which the complainant furnished.  That the HP Customer Care officials blaming on each other within themselves, did not respond properly.  In order to keep the Laptop in working condition, they have attempted to rectify the booting problem and they have opined that this was manufacturing defect and did not consider the warranty furnished to them and referred the issue to their higher officials and subsequently the matter was unsolved and closed.  That the said Laptop suffered with embryonic defect which is worst than the functional defect.  That when the complainant again contacted the official of OP they asked him to pay separately for the service charge along with cost of components for this Laptop for which the complainant did not agree.  That since the said Laptop is suffering with a manufacturing defect i.e., an embryonic defect and the remedy available is only to replace the Laptop.  That since OP failed to respond to the request made by the complainant either for rectification of the defect or replacement of the Laptop he was compelled to approach this Forum.

3. In response to the notice issued OP entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version.  The sum and substance of the version are as under:

That OP is neither the manufacturer nor the service provider of Laptop in question and hence it is not responsible for any financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment of the complainant.  That the complainant has filed this complaint against wrong entity.  Though OP is a part of Hewlett Packard Company but it is a BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) and has nothing to do with the manufacturing activities or providing service to the consumer products.  Therefore, OP is not liable to answer the claims of the complainant.  That the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the OP.  That any decision/orders passed by this Forum cannot be complied by this OP as decision of any replacement or supply of necessary Gadgets can only be taken up by HP Sales (India) Ltd.  Had the complainant issued a legal notice prior to filing of the complaint, they would have guided/directed him to approach the right party to have grievances addressed and resolved.  That there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP.  That there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP as alleged in the complaint.  That the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties.  That the complainant is trying for an unjust enrichment by filing this complaint against OP.  Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.   

4. On the rival contention of both parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon certain documents including the copy of the invoice.  OP did not prefer to tender any evidence on its part.  Written arguments have been filed by both sides.  Perused the material placed on record including the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7.  The first and foremost objection raised by the OP is that, though it is part of Hewlett Packard Company, but it is BPO and has nothing to do with manufacturing activities or providing service to ‘consumer’ products.  It is further contended by OP that, it is not at all a proper party to the present proceedings and cannot comply with any order, if passed, against it either for replacement of the Laptop or for any other services.  It is further contended by the OP that, the decision of any replacement or supply of necessary Gadgets can only be taken up by HP sales (India) Ltd.  Therefore, it is argued on behalf of OP that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed against a wrong person/entity.

8. The OP has been described as under in the cause title;

H.P Corporate Office,
Global e-Business Operations Pvt. Ltd., (BEPO1-BEP),
G.E.B.C., Embassey Prime,

No.66/2, Ward No.83,
Bagmane Tehpark, G to 6^th Floor,
Wing ‘A’ C.V Raman Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 093, Phone No.080-33841000
KARNATAKA STATE.

9. The description of OP does not suggest that it is a BPO.  As could be seen from the e-mail communications produced by the complainant, he has all the while communicated with this OP for the repair and replacement of the Laptop in question.  OP claimed that, though it is a part of HP Company but it is a BPO and has nothing to do with manufacturing activities or providing services to the consumer products.  He further claimed that, the decision of any replacement of Laptop or supply of necessary spare parts/gadgets can only be taken up by HP Sales (India) Ltd.  It is significant to note here that version filed in this case is signed by Authorized Signatory, for Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd.  If at all OP is nothing to do with manufacturing activities and sales of the consumer durables, we don’t understand how come that the version is signed by Authorized Signatory for Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd.  OP in their version specifically contended that only HP Sales (India) Ltd., alone is liable for any replacement or supply of necessary spare parts/gadgets for Laptop.  Since the authorized signatory for Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd., has signed the version, we are of the definite opinion that, the OP apart from BPO is also dealing with sales division of Hewlett Packard India Ltd.  If at all OP is not at all concerned with HP Sales (India) Ltd., how come the version is signed by authorized signatory of Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that OP though dealing with sales and service is falsely claiming that they are exclusively engaged in Business Process Outsourcing.  The fact that the authorized signatory for Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd., has signed the version indicates that the OP is right and proper person to answer the claim put forth by the complainant.

10. Nowhere in the version OP denied the defects, as noticed by the complainant in the Laptop purchased on 29.09.2013 at USA which has a worldwide warranty and technical support.  The complainant has produced the invoice copy to establish the purchase of the Laptop in question, on 29.09.2013.  Within few days from the date of purchase complainant experienced defect in the Laptop which he later brought to the notice of the concerned in the OP.  The e-mail communications between the complainant and the officials of OP goes to establish that the complainant time and again brought to the notice of OP regarding the defect in the Laptop and requested for rectification or replacement of the set, since the defect noticed was within the warranty period.

11. The material placed on record goes to show that, the OP has never made any sincere attempts to rectify the defects in the Laptop.  According to the complainant the Laptop in question suffers with manufacturing defect i.e., an embryonic defect which cannot be rectified and only remedy available for the OP is to replace the Laptop.  OP did not deny that the said Laptop suffers with an embryonic defect which cannot be rectified.  The conduct of OP in not attending to the defects in the Laptop which were brought to the notice within warranty period amounts to deficiency of service.  In para-3 of the complaint, the complainant alleges that on 16^th July 2014 at 11.15 A.M the complainant was asked to pay separately, the service charge along with cost of components, for rectification of the defect in the Laptop for which he did not agree as the defect noticed was during warranty period.  OP did not deny this allegation made in the complaint.  OP has no right to demand any service charges or cost of components during the warranty period as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card.

12. Moreover the OP also did not tender their affidavit evidence to substantiate the averments made in the version.  In absence of his affidavit evidence, we are unable to accept the bare averments in the version regarding the activities being carried out by the OP as claimed in the version.

13. From the material placed on record, coupled with sworn testimony of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the Laptop needs to be replaced since the same is suffering with manufacturing defect i.e., embryonic defect.  The conduct of OP in refusing to attend to the defects in the Laptop or replace the Laptop within warranty period amounts to deficiency of service and same must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony for which OP has to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.   

14. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to replace the defective Laptop in question or pay Rs.25,000/- being the price of the Laptop to the complainant.  The OP shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the deficiency of service resulting in hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OP shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 24^th day of October 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 25.05.2015.

1. Sri.Neelakanteshwara Palla

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party - Nil

Documents produced by the Opposite Party - Nil

  MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

  Vln*