Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/52/2018

Alapati Krishna Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Helwett and Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 22.01.2018

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 28.06.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 15.07.2022

 

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. 52/2018

FRIDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2022

Mr.Alapati Krishna Prasad,

C/o. Cognizant Technology Solutions,

Menon Eternity Building,8^th Floor,

New No.156, Old No.110, St.Mary’s Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai.

TamilNadu – 600 018.                                                                                                                                     ... Complainant               

 

..Vs..

Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt Ltd

Represented by its Managing Director Sumeer Chandra,

No.24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi,

Hosur Road, Bangalore,

Karnataka – 56 0030.                                                                                                                                      ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : Mr. R. Naveen

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Complainant and on having treated the Written Arguments of the Opposite party as Oral Arguments of the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A.,B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- for negligence made by the HP company in not handling the complaint properly made by the Complainant within the reasonable time and to pay Rs.50,000/- for compensation for mental torture faced by the Complainant in process of dealing with the company and to pay the cost of ‘customer notice’ which was send to the HP company and to pay the cost of legal proceedings incurred by the Complainant.

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

The Complainant placed an order for purchase of a HP Laptop of model No.HP Notebook 15 -ay513TX, serial number CND1045PX and product number 1AC89PA#AC through online official site of www.hpshopping ,in on 12.07.2017 of worth Rs.32,965/-. His Order was confirmed on the same day vide No.923098 and he made payment through online using his Axis Bank Credit Card to an account of Savex Technologies being the authorized distributor of HP India Sales Pvt Ltd and also got transaction number for the payment made. At the time of Purchase he had selected the gift of “Additional two years onsite warranty in addition to one year burglary and theft insurance under HP reinvent inking offer and the same was approved through email dated 01.08.2017 from www.notebook@ redemptionsupport.com and received redemption offer code number. He had purchased the Laptop for Rs.32,965/- on 6 months no cost EMI with instant cash back offer of Rs.1,305/-, but the said cash back was not credited to his account yet. When contacted the Customer service for EMI option, it was informed that he had selected EMI option and paid the entire amount. But in the official site of HP there was no such direct payment option. Further at the time of booking it was agreed to deliver the product within 2 – 4 days and the expected delivery as 16.07.2017, on 5^th day he had contacted the customer service provider and found that the Invoice was not generated till then and informed him to give 24 hours to track the status of the order. After that no response about the status of invoice and the delivery of the product. Since he was not intimated in any mode, he tracked the status of Blue Dart courier being the official consignor of HP Company had found the shipment was made on 18.07.2017 and the product would be delivered on 20.07.2017, which caused delay of 4 business working days. He had received an email regarding claim approval of warranty which was selected by him would be emailed or dispatched within 4 – 5 weeks from claim approval date, i.e, on 21.07.2017 which should have been sent on 20.08.2017, wherein he had received the same on 25.08.2017 after a delay of 5 days. As no EMI option and cash back offer provided after purchase of the product, due to defects in official website of HP company the entire amount of Rs.32,965/- was debited at one time payment and still no cash back has been credited to his account, which caused him to suffer financially a lot. In spite of his notice through emails and telephonic conversations with the HP Company, they had argued stating he had not selected EMI Option and had chosen direct payment option, when there was no such option of direct payment as there were options through Paytm, NEFT/RTGS, Cheque/DD, EMI, No Cost EMI and Cash on Delivery. When there was such offers it was needless to pay entire amount, he had paid the entire amount which was deducted automatically, due to website technical defect. He had struggled a lot to take the delivery of the product and warranty details, the Customer service provided shown negligence response to his queries and also negative responses by the employees of the Company, which resulted him to suffer a lot of mental agony in addition to his work disturbance due to the above issues, of which he had sent customer notice on 31.08.2017 and on 07.10.2017 to the Company’s Bangalore, Mumbai, Haryana offices along with head office (Corporate Office) in India situated at Bangalore, Karnataka, due to non specification of Corporate office correctly mentioned in Company’s website at his last option. Though he had informed the company if his issue not resolved would approach Consumer Forum, the Company had solved his various complaints made on 11.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and 20.07.2017. And the Complaint was filed within the Jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum where the Opposite Party was carrying business. Hence the Complaint.

3.   Brief facts of Written Version filed by the Opposite Party are as follows:-

        That the name of the opposite party company earlier known as Hewlett GO Packard Global Soft Private Limited has been changed to EIT Services India Private Limited vide Certificate of Incorporation vide Corporate Identification number (CIN) No - U72300KA2000PTC026968. The above Complaint filed by the Complainant is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts and circumstances of the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the Opposite Party.That the Complainant has filed the above cited consumer complaint against the Opposite Party alleging manufacturing defect in the HP 15: ay513TX laptop ("Laptop") and deficiency in services. The Opposite Party are neither the manufacturers nor the service providers of the laptop in question and as such are not responsible or liable for the claims of the Complainant. That this Hon'ble Forum while considering the prayers as sought for by the Complainant in the present complaint, ought to keep in mind the well established principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms & conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms & the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract. The same would be evident from the relevant clause of the warranty, which states as "To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall manufacturer or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or coincidental or other information, for business interruption, for injury, for loss of privacy arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the software product) even if any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages and even if the remedy fails of its essential purpose." Hence, the Complainant is debarred from claiming any compensation or damages from the Opposite Party. That the Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint. That in the present complaint, the Opposite Party is neither residing/having a branch office or carrying any business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Forum. Hence, this Hon'ble Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this issue and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the aforementioned complaint is liable to be dismissed under  Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with costs, for being false, frivolous, vexatious and misconceived. The Complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and mala fide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the Opposite Party No. 1 which is a Company of long standing and high repute without just cause or valid reason. As stated earlier, the present complaint against the Opposite Party is not maintainable as the complainant has filed the same against a wrong entity. The Opposite Party has nothing to do with the manufacturing activities of the aforementioned laptop nor does the Opposite Party provide services to various consumer products, responsible or liable to the claims of the complainant, hence the complaint filed against the Opposite Party be dismissed for the grounds stated below, the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint as under,  That it is settled principle of law as per Section 2 d (1) d (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that in order to maintain the dispute in this Hon'ble Forum against Opposite Party, the Complainant must be a consumer against Opposite Party. But in the present case there is no iota of evidence of materials from the side of the Complainant that the Complainant has purchased any goods or has availed any service from Opposite Party by paying consideration. Accordingly, in the absence of any relevant documents to this effect, the Complainant is not entitled to maintain the dispute against Opposite Party since the Complainant is not a consumer against the Opposite Party. If any decision/orders is passed by this Hon'ble Forum, it cannot be complied with by the Opposite Party as the decision of any replacement or supply of necessary laptop cannot be taken up by the Opposite Party. That the Complainant has filed the complaint against Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Ltd i.e., the Opposite Party which is an entirely different entity that is neither responsible nor liable for the grievance of the Complainant for the alleged defects in the laptop in question as the Opposite Party are not the manufacturers or the service providers for the laptop in question. That, it is also the facts that the Complainant has not addressed or issued any legal notice to the Opposite Party before the institution of the complaint against the Opposite Party, that if the complainant would have issued legal notice, the Opposite Party would have guided/directed the Complainant to approach the right party to get his grievances in respect of the laptop in question.From the date of purchase the alleged laptop to filing of the present dispute, the Complainant has neither reported any grievance to the Opposite Party nor communicated with the Opposite Party in respect of the Laptop in question at any point of time. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. In view of the aforesaid, Opposite Party in no way liable for the alleged grievance of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is not the manufacturer of the alleged laptop. In view of the aforesaid averments, the onus lies with the Complainant to prove that the complaint is maintainable against the Opposite Party. That the remedy against the grievance of the Complainant lies elsewhere but not with the Opposite Party, since Opposite Party are neither the manufacturers nor the service providers of the alleged laptop nor was/is there any privity of contract between the Opposite Party and the Complainant. That in view of the above factual aspects, the Opposite Party is not the necessary party/proper party to the present dispute and as seen the complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party. That the Complainant has suppressed the material facts to this Hon'ble Court and filed the complaint. In view of the averments made above, the Opposite Party are neither guilty of deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant nor liable to any of the claims of the Complainant as no cause of action for the complaint arises against the Opposite Party and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. The cause action alleged as against these Opposite Parties is unsustainable and misleading and the Complaint is an abuse of process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint against the Opposite Party by suppressing the material facts claiming for refund the cost of the laptop with compensation and costs. The complainant has filed the complaint against the Opposite Party by suppressing the material facts claiming for refund the cost of the laptop with compensation and costs. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party is prima facie unsustainable and therefore the question of granting any relief whatsoever to the Complainant does not arise. The Opposite Party requests leave to file a detailed written statement or rejoinder and amend/alter the objections filed, if so required and advised. That it is submitted that the Complainant is attempting to make out a case for unjust enrichment and trying his luck by filing the present Complaint against the Opposite Party. For the facts and circumstances mentioned here in above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs against the Opposite Party as no cause of action has ever arisen against the Opposite Party. The Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed against the Opposite Party at the Prayer column of the Complaint. The present Complaint has been filed just to harass the Opposite Party. Hence the Complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12  were marked. The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and on the side of Opposite Party no documents were marked.

 

5. Points for Consideration:-

1) Whether this commission has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?

2) Whether the Complaint is affected by non joinder of parties?

3) Whether the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service?

4) Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1:-

     It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had placed an order for purchase of a HP Laptop of model No.HP Notebook 15 -ay513TX, serial number CND1045PX and product number 1AC89PA#AC through online official site of www.hpshopping.in on 12.07.2017 of worth Rs.32,965/-. His Order was confirmed on the same day vide No.923098 and he made payment through online using his Axis Bank Credit Card to an account of Savex Technologies being the authorized distributor of HP India Sales Pvt Ltd and also got transaction number for the payment made. Since the subject Laptop was booked through online, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-

      It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had placed an order for purchase of a HP Laptop of model No.HP Notebook 15 -ay513TX, serial number CND1045PX and product number 1AC89PA#AC through online official site of www.hpshopping.in on 12.07.2017 of worth Rs.32,965/- and his Order was confirmed on the same day vide No.923098, by the Opposite Party. Further, from the reading of the complaint, the Complainant had raised about the offers not been provided to him, delay in delivery of the subject product and also about the delay in providing warranty, for which the Opposite Party alone is answerable as the Complainant had placed order through the Opposite Party’s website and the delivery of the subject product would have been allotted through their authorised distributor by the Opposite Party. Hence this Commission holds that the Complaint is not affected by non joinder of parties.

Point No.3;-

     It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had placed an order for purchase of a HP Laptop of model No.HP Notebook 15 -ay513TX, serial number CND1045PX and product number 1AC89PA#AC through online official site of www.hpshopping.in on 12.07.2017 of worth Rs.32,965/- and his Order was confirmed on the same day vide No.923098, by the Opposite Party.

     The dispute arose when the Complainant has not been provided with No Cost EMI and Cash back offer of Rs.1,305/- as agreed in the website of the Opposite Party at the time of his Purchase and further the delivery of subject product would be made within 2 - 4 days, whereas he had received only on 20.07.2017, which is after 4 days, as well as gift of Additional two years onsite warranty in addition to one year burglary and theft insurance under HP reinvent inking offer and the same was approved through email dated 01.08.2017 from www.notebook@ redemptionsupport.com and received redemption offer code number, would be provided within 4-5 weeks, on which he had received an email regarding claim approval of warranty which was selected by him would be emailed or dispatched within 4 – 5 weeks from claim approval date, i.e, on 21.07.2017 which should have been sent on 20.08.2017, wherein he had received the same on 25.08.2017 which is after a delay of 5 days.

     The Contention of the Complainant is that he had purchased the subject Laptop for Rs.32,965/- on 6 months no cost EMI with instant cash back offer of Rs.1,305/-, but the said cash back was not credited to his account, when he contacted the Customer service for EMI option, it was informed that he had not selected EMI option and paid the entire amount, but in the official site of HP there was no such direct payment option, options that were available were through Paytm, NEFT/RTGS, Cheque/DD, EMI, No Cost EMI and Cash on Delivery, as found in Ex.A-3. When there was such offers it was needless to pay entire amount, he had paid the entire amount which was deducted automatically, due to website technical defect and was not converted to No Cost EMI.

     Further contended that at the time of booking, i.e, on 12.07.2017, it was agreed to deliver the product within 2 – 4 days and the expected delivery was on 16.07.2017, as found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-2 is the Confirmation Mail dated 12.07.2017 sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant when he had contacted the Opposite Party Customer service on 5^th day, Invoice was not generated till then and on tracking found that the shipment was made only on 18.07.2017, as found in Ex.A-5 the Tax Invoice dated 18.07.2017 and the product would be delivered on 20.07.2017, which caused delay of 4 business working days.

     Further Contended that he had received an email dated 22.07.2017 as found in Ex.A-6, regarding claim approval of warranty which was selected by him would be emailed or dispatched within 4 – 5 weeks from claim approval date, i.e, on 21.07.2017 which should have been sent on 20.08.2017, but he had received the same only on 25.08.2017 after a delay of 5 days.

     Further Contended that still agreed cash back offer of Rs.1,305/- has not been credited to his account, which caused him to suffer financially a lot. In spite of his notice through emails and telephonic conversations with the HP Company, they had failed to convert No Cost Emi Option and had credited the agreed cash back offer, as found in Ex.A-3 and had also failed to respond for the delay in delivery of the subject product as well as the warranty details.

     Further contended that the Customer service provided shown negligence response to his queries and also negative responses by the employees of the Company, which resulted him to suffer a lot of mental agony in addition to his work disturbance due to the above issues, of which he had constrained to send a customer notice as found in Ex.A-9 and A-10 the Postal receipts dated 31.08.2017 and 07.10.2017 to the Company’s Bangalore, Mumbai, Haryana offices along with head office (Corporate Office) in India situated at Bangalore, Karnataka, due to non specification of Corporate office correctly mentioned in Company’s website at his last option. Hence the negligent act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and he has to be compensated.

     The Opposite Party contended that they are neither the manufacturers nor the service providers of the laptop in question and as such are not responsible or liable for the claims of the Complainant. The Complainant had filed alleging manufacturing defects and deficiency of service against them, There was no evidence to show that the Complainant had availed service from the Opposite Party. The name of the Opposite Party has been changed to EIT Services India Pvt Ltd. The Opposite party is entirely a different entity and there are not responsible nor liable for the grievance of the Complainant for alleged defects in the Laptop in question. The Complainant had not addressed or issued any legal notice to the Opposite Party before institution of the Complaint, if the same would have done they would be advised the Complainant to approach the right party to get his grievances resolved. From the date of purchase till the filing of the complaint, the Complainant had not reported or communicated any grievance to the Opposite Party. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party. The remedy of the Complainant is available elsewhere and not with the Opposite party. The Complainant had supressed material facts and claimed for refund of the cost of Laptop with compensation and costs. The Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service and not liable to any of the claims of the Complainant.

     On careful reading of the complaint, Exhibits marked in support of the Complaint as well as the Written Version, it is clear that the Opposite Party had all along had communicated with the Complainant as found in the mail communications sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant on 12.02.2017 (Ex.A-1, A-2, A-4), 07.11.2017, 22.07.2017, 01.08.2017 (Ex.A-6), 15.11.2017 (Ex.A-11). Further no proper address has been provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant to address his grievances, he had sent a Notice dated 26.09.2017 as found in Ex.A-9 to various addresses of the Opposite Party as evidenced by the Postal Receipts dated 31.08.2017 & 07.10.2017, marked as Ex.A-10 and thus the contentions of the Opposite Party is not sustainable.

     On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission holds that the Opposite Party had negligently failed to honour its commitments in converting the No cost EMI and cash back offer opted by the Complainant as well as in delivering the Subject Laptop and the warranty details on the agreed dates as per Ex.A-1, Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-6 and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Hence, This Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service.     

Point No.4:-

As discussed and decided Point no.1 against the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also for a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing compliance, the Complainant is entitled to recover the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 15^th of July 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	12.07.2017	Order & Payment Processing Document
Ex.A2	12.07.2017	Order Conformation Document
Ex.A3	12.07.2017	Online payment processing Document
Ex.A4	12.07.2017	Order Payment Transaction
Ex.A5	18.07.2017	Purchase Invoice Document
Ex.A6	01.08.2017	Warranty details Document
Ex.A7	20.07.2017	Courier tracking Document
Ex.A8	20.07.2017	Courier Receipt (consignment)
Ex.A9	31.08.2017 07.10.2017	Customer Complaint Notice (1) Customer Complaint Notice (1)
Ex.A10	31.08.2017 07.10.2017	Postal Acknowledgement Receipts (1) Postal Acknowledgement Receipts (2)
Ex.A11	17.07.2017	Communication Mails
Ex.A12	11.07.2017 18.07.2017 20.07.2017	Case ID No.08021253 Case ID No.08027087 Case ID No.08028981

 

 

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

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                       T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                    MEMBER I                                                                     PRESIDENT