DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.618/2014:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sanjeev Nirwani

S/o. Sh. S.C.Nirwani

22, Mausam Vihar, Delhi – 110 051

Complainant

Vs.

M/s.HCL Infosystems Ltd.,

806, Siddharth, 96, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 110 048

Respondent

Date of Admission : 09/07/2014

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 18/03/2015

ORDER

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member:

The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a HCL Laptop Model No. AE1V2580-I bearing Serial No. 3111AE775346 from M/s. Vikram Electronics, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-.  The laptop carried a basic warranty of one year and a further extended warranty of two years upto 15/06/2014.  It is submitted by the complainant that though the warranty excluded ODD, Battery, Adaptor and cosmetic parts but the responsibility of providing parts at cost rested with the respondent.  It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of January, 2013 the battery of the Laptop started malfunctioning and did not give backup.  Constrained by the repeated failure to contact the respondent on Live Chat on its website, the complainant wrote an email dated 18/01/2013 to it.  It was auto-replied by a standard email.  The complainant alleges to have received a phone call from the New Product Department for sale promotion who assured him to forward his complaint to the Service Team of the respondent.  A standard reply mail assuring response within one working day was sent in response to an email dated 30/01/2013 sent to the Nodal Officer of the respondent.  Despite some procedural calls to ascertain the problem the respondent has not resolved the problem till date.  The complainant was forced to buy a new laptop and use the one in question as a Desktop.  It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of the cost of the laptop with interest, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and the cost of present litigation.

            Respondent in this case filed their written statement wherein it has admitted the fact of purchase of the laptop by the complainant on 15/06/2011 but it has challenged the cost quoted by the complainant.  It has also denied the responsibility of providing the parts namely the ODD, Battery, Adapter and cosmetic parts even at cost.  It is submitted that the complainant had used the laptop for more than one year without any problem and no defect had arisen in the laptop within the basic warranty period.  It is only on 18/01/2013 that the complainant had written an email seeking suggestive options available for the battery of his said laptop.  It is contended by the respondent that with changing technology the market value of the laptop in question has become almost nil after using it for such a long period. It is in these circumstances that its New Product Department might have contacted him in relation to schemes of replacement launched by it.  It is submitted that since the battery being a consumable item is not covered under warranty the request of the complainant could not be processed.  It is contended by the respondent that had he used the battery as per the instructions given in the warranty card the complainant would have enjoyed the battery for much longer period.  There is no cause of action against the respondent and the same is liable to be dismissed.  Rest of the allegations have been denied.    

            Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit in support of their respective cases.

            Heard the Ld. Cls. for the parties and perused the record.             

            It is not in dispute that the complainant had enjoyed uninterrupted services of the laptop for about one and a half years before its battery exhausted and that the warranty excluded Battery besides ODD, Adaptor and cosmetic parts.  The only question that needs to be decided is whether the respondent is under an obligation to provide spare parts and consumable items like battery, etc.  necessary for running the laptop on payment after the expiration of basic period of warranty?  In the case in hand, it is significant to mention here that the complainant is not seeking replacement of the battery of the laptop in question but on the other hand he wants to purchase a new battery of the said laptop as the one provided with the laptop had exhausted.  The battery of the laptop to be very specific is a consumable part which is required for using the laptop and without which the product would become redundant and it has to be laid off for want of this exclusive consumable part.  It is not out of place to say that the spare parts of the branded products like the one in hand are so exclusive and product specific that they ones available in the local market do not fit into the product to make it functional and have to be procured from the manufacturing company itself whenever the need arises.  The Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent social legislation that lays down the rights and remedies of the consumers in a market, normally dominated by manufacturers, traders of goods and providers of various services.  The word “Services” under the The Consumer Protection Act includes services within the warranty period as per the terms and conditions of warranty and paid services beyond the warranty period.  Paid Services beyond the warranty period shall be deemed to include an obligation to provide spare parts and consumable parts which are exclusive to the products.  Had the intent of the legislature been to exclude Paid Services beyond the warranty period of a product from the term “Services” then it would have specifically ousted those services.  In the absence of any such exception it cannot be said that the definition of the term “Services” does not include Paid Services beyond the warranty period.  The manufacturer of a product is under an obligation to supply spare parts and consumable parts to the users of those products so that he may continue to enjoy the services of that product during its average length of life.  It is not the case of respondent that it has stopped manufacturing the Laptop in question.  In these circumstances, when the product is still being manufactured by the respondent it is hard to believe that the battery for the said model is not available with the respondent.  The Respondent cannot deny its liability to supply the battery, a consumable part, to the complainant and is under an obligation to make it available to him.  Failure to provide the same categorically brings the case within the four squares of deficiency in providing services to its consumer.  It is also not the case of the respondent that at the time of selling the product the fact that after the warranty period it shall not be under any liability to supply even on payment the spare parts and consumable parts of the products so sold to the consumers and besides that warning the complainant went ahead to purchase the said laptop.  It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint the respondent has neither made any efforts to provide a new battery in replacement of the old battery nor had come forward with any offer to replace the laptop or to refund its cost as for want of a new battery it cannot be used in a portable form, the basic purpose behind purchasing a laptop has become frustrated.  The failure on the part of the respondent to provide a spare battery at cost to the complainant just after about one and a half year of its purchase has compelled the complainant to abandon the said laptop which but for want of spare battery is otherwise in proper working condition and has, thus, has cut short the average length of life of the laptop.  The complainant has suffered dual financial loss in as much as the money spent by him to purchase the laptop has been wasted out as he was constrained to abandon the laptop for want of a spare battery and on the other side he was forced to buy a new laptop and use the one in question as a Desktop.

            It is very significant to mention here that under the extended warranty the manufacturer is not obligated to replace or refund the cost of the product but is indubitably under an obligation to provide services relating to repairs which are deemed to include the supply of spare parts and consumable parts to render the product back into proper working condition.  In this corporate aeon, it has become a practice with the manufacturing companies to lure people with advertisements to purchase their products and thereafter fleece them of their hard earned money by denying their liability to provide spare parts and consumable parts to its consumers essential for the working of the product during the average length of life.  This is a perfect case which affects the consumer community at large irrespective of the product used by them.  If the manufacturers of products after sale deny their liability to provide the spare parts and consumable parts they force the consumers to abandon the products which are otherwise in proper working condition. This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturers to escalate their sales and profit figures by thrusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase a new one in its place.

With regard to the contention of the respondent challenging the cost of laptop as quoted by the complainant it is significant to mention here that the respondent has failed to place on record any credible documentary evidence in support its contention.  In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence to the contrary, the contention raised by the respondent is not tenable.

            Further, not an iota of evidence has been field on record by the respondent that the complainant has used the battery in contravention of the instructions given in the warranty card.  Mere bald allegations would not suffice.  The respondent has failed to substantiate its allegation with convincing evidence.  The contention of the respondent does not hold water and as such it is not acceptable to us.

            We allow this complaint.  Taking into consideration the fact that the complainant has enjoyed uninterrupted services of the laptop for about one and a half year we, direct, the respondent company to pay to the complainant Rs.28,000/- towards the cost of laptop.  The complainant shall return the old laptop to the respondent.  We, further, direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment caused and cost of litigation.  If the respondent company fails to pay to the complainant the cost of the computer as mentioned above within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of this complaint till it is finally paid.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules and to the Competition Commission of India.