View 176 Cases Against Hewlett
Ghantasala Ashok Kumar filed a consumer case on 13 May 2015 against HEWLETT - PACKARD in the Visakhapatnam-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/26/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Jun 2015.
Date of Registration of the Complaint:01-02-2012
Date of Order:13-05-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,
Male Member
Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2015.
CONSUMER CASE No.26/2012
Between:-
Mr. Ghantasala Ashok Kumar,
S/o G. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 23
years, MBA Student, GITAM School of
International Business, R. No. 507-C,
Vinay Sadan, GITAM Boys Hostel,
GITAM University, Visakhaptnam.
….. Complainant
And:-
1.HEWLETT-PACKARD, Development
Company, Corporate Office, rep. by its
Chief Executive Officer, Hewlett Packard
India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salapurla Arena,
Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 030.
2.HP Authorized Service Centre, Maha Electronics
Pvt. Ltd., D. No. 47-11-3, Eswar Homes, 1st lane,
Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.
… Opposite Parties
This case coming on 08.04.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri T.V.S.K. Kanaka Raju, Smt. M.A.S. Prabha, Sri D. Apparao, Sri V. Satish, Sri Y.N. Srinivas & Sri M.V.B. Sriram Murthy, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri N. Prabhakara Rao and Sri K.V. Narayana Murty, Advocates for the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)
1. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant HAS purchased a HP laptop product No.VB624PA, Serial No. CNF9171HDC, Model No.dv6-1110AX on 31.07.2009 by paying Rs.48,000/- (Rupees Forty eight thousand only) to the Opposite Parties. Right from the date of its purchase the product was not functioned properly within the first 3 months of its purchase the laptop showed no display on the screen when the power was on. The Complainant immediately approached the authorized HP Service Centre, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The service centre people have retained the laptop with them for about 10 days and then returned the product that the problem has been rectified. After few months the same problem was faced by the Complainant. Then the Complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party again the problem was rectified by the 2nd Opposite Party, and returned the product on 17.06.2010. On 27.07.2010 to 09.09.2010 the same problem occurred. The 2nd Opposite Party retained the laptop under the guise of attending to its repairs. Inspite of many requests made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties did not rectify the problem nor refund the cost of laptop to the Complainant till now. Hence, this Complaint.
2. a) directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) towards the cost of laptop paid by the Complainant together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of Complaint;
b) by directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the complaint;
3. The 2nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum as it was set exparte and remained exparte.
The 1st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter. The 1st Opposite Party stated that the Opposite Party rectified the defects in the said laptop whenever the problem reported by the Complainant. As there is no warranty to the product the 1st Opposite Party intimated and estimate Rs.23,555/- to the Complainant towards further repair of the laptop on 31.07.2010 according to their terms and conditions of the warranty. But the Complainant did not accept for the same. After warranty the 1st Opposite Party has no liability to repair the said product at free of cost. So, they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.
4. At the time of enquiry, both parties filed affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions. Exs.A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant. No documents were marked for the 1st Opposite Party. Heard both sides.
5. Ex.A1 is the HP E-mail Warranty Status Results. Ex.A2 is the Service Call Report dated 17.06.2010. Ex.A3 is the Service Call Report dated 09.04.2010 Ex.A4 is the e-mail correspondence dated 16.11.2010. Ex.A5 is the Quotation/Pro-forma Invoice dated 16.11.2010. Ex.A6 is the e-mail correspondence dated 25.11.2010.
6. The fact shown from Ex.A1 reveals that the Opposite Party addressed to the Complainant through e-mail stating that the warranty has expired on 31.07.2010. As per Exs.A4 and Ex.A5 the 1st Opposite Party offered a quotation of Rs.23,555.61 paise for approval of the Complainant to repair the said laptop, because the warranty has expired on 31.07.2010.
7. The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?
8. After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased the HP laptop on 31.07.2009. The Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties admitted that the warranty period ended on 31.07.2010, whereas the Complainant approached this Forum on 14.11.2011 clearly more than one year 3 months after expiry of the warranty period. As such the main relief sought by the Complainant, “directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay the amount of Rs.48,000/- towards costs of laptop paid by the Complainant together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of complaint” cannot be entertained by any stretch of imagination as the warranty period expired long back, the Complainant has to get his laptop repair by paying the repair cost to the Opposite Parties. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has to make his own arrangements to get his laptop repair there cannot be any stipulated duty on the part of the Opposite Parties to repair the Complainant’s laptop. In the circumstances, this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.
9. In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 13th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Male Member Lady Member
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.A01 | 31.07.2010 | HP E-mail Warranty Status Results. | Net copy |
Ex.A02 | 17.06.2010 | Service Call Report No.4616009531issued by the 2nd OP | Office copy |
Ex.A03 | 09.09.2010 | Service Call Report No.4622400010 issued by the 2nd OP | Office copy |
Ex.A04 | 16.11.2010 | e-mail correspondence copy from Maha Electronics Case No.4622400010 | e-mail copy |
Ex.A05 | 16.11.2010 | Quotation/Proforma Invoice No.4622400010 | e-mail copy |
Ex.A06 | 25.11.2010 | e-mail correspondence copy | e-mail copy |
For the Opposite Parties:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Male Member Lady Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.