BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 581 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.09.2015

Date of Decision: 26.04.2016  

G.S.Sachdeva son of Lt.S.Man Singh Sachdeva, resident of 76, Holy City Green, Gumtala Bye Pass, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited, NDH04, IN New Delhi Sales-Surya Hotel TD Site (NDH), Crown Plaza Surya, E-F, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-10065.
2. Aforeserve.com.Ltd. Plot No. 386, Ist Floor, Shastri Nagar, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
3. Reliance Retail limited, Trillium Mall, Mini Anchor 1, Wing A, 3^rd Floor, Circular Road, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.J.S.Sachdeva, Advocate

              For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh.Neeraj Brahmi, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Pardeep Arora, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1. Sh.G.S.Sachdeva has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date, on the allegations that  the complainant purchased an HP Brand Laptop from Opposite Party on cash payment of Rs.52,090.18 paisa vide cash memo No. CIN No. 401100MH1999PLC120563 on 21.10.2014. After reaching home, said laptop was found defective and the very next day i.e. on 22.10.2014 the same was taken to the retail outlet of Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.3 after getting it inspected, informed that the item has some manufacturing defect which can not be removed by them. Opposite Party No.3 also disclosed that it does not have any other piece of same specifications and same model and therefore, suggested to get it replaced by some higher model after paying the difference in the price. The proposal of the Opposite Party was considered by the complainant and a higher model HP PAV 15-P045-TX was purchased vide cash memo No.CIN No.Uo1100MH1999PLC120563 dated 22.10.2014 after paying a price  difference of Rs.7,893.17 paisa in cash on return of the previous laptop. The product carries a warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. As such, the complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties  as defined under section 2 of the Act. Opposite Party No.3 is retailer of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Opposite Party No.1 is manufacturer and Opposite Party No.2 is service centre. On 7.8.2015 i.e. within the period of limitation of validity of warranty, the laptop screen went blank and there was no power supply to laptop. The matter was immediately reported to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 over phone. After 3 days, technical staff of the consumer reported to the consumer on 10.08.2015 and after inspecting the said laptop gave the opinion that there is fault in mother board. The technician of Opposite Party No.2 prepared the job sheet on the spot and took the photograph of the mother board etc. Technical staff further disclosed that the defect could not be removed, however since the product/ item is within warranty period, it could be replaced from Opposite Party No.1. He further disclosed that this model has been abandoned by the company. On 14.08.2015 an e-mail was received by the complainant from Opposite Party No.2, whereby the  complainant was informed that the said product can not be replaced under warranty due to reason quote “ it was found that the component number is the failed (system board) is not matching with the original system board component number supplied with the product.” The reason mentioned in the reply e-mail  is a manipulated reason to escape liability, and to cheat the complainant. Copy of e-mail is attached. Keeping in view the disclosure made by Opposite Party No.2, that the present model has also been abandoned by the company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and therefore, the company may not be in position to replace the defective system board, and therefore the Opposite Party No.2 was making lame excuses to escape liability and therefore, was trying to frighten away the complainant. The complainant had stored vast professional information in the aid laptop which has been obliterated due to the deficiency in quality of the product supplied by the Opposite Party. As such, the complainant suffered huge loss due to deficient standard of the product which needs to be compensated by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties  may please be directed to refund the amount of Rs.59,953.17 paisa with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of purchase till date of payment. Besides this, the Opposite Parties  may please be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.   Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, all the Opposite Parties  appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 chose to file the joint written statement while Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written statement.
3. In their joint written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and  is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts; that from the perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein, are  vague, baseless and with malafide intention. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of the laptop in question being d effective without relying on any expert  report from an recognised and notified laboratory under section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act; that the answering Opposite Parties  submit that  Opposite Party No.3 from whom the complainant purchased the laptop is not an authorised dealer/ authorised support service provider of the HP Brand products i.e. the laptops, printers and computers manufactured by the answering Opposite Parties; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service being established against the answering Opposite Parties; that the laptop purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years and after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance; that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act with costs for being false, frivolous, vexatious and misconceived.  On merits, it is denied that that on 21.10.2014 the complainant purchased HP Brand Laptop from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.52,080.18 paisa and the same are not in the knowledge of the  answering Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the complainant may put to strict proof of the same. The answering Opposite Parties  submit that  Opposite Party No.3 from whom the complainant purchased the laptop is not an authorised dealer/ authorised support service provider of the HP branded products manufactured by answering Opposite Parties and there is no privity of contract between the answering Opposite Parties  on one hand and the Opposite Party No.3 on the other hand. It is denied that the complainant was asked  to replace the original laptop  with a laptop of same higher  quality by answering Opposite Parties  or that the complainant purchased the higher model HP Pav 15-P045-TX vide cash memo No. CIN No. u01100mh1999plc120563 dated 22.10.2014 after paying the price difference of Rs.7863. 17 paisa in cash. Since Opposite Party No.3 was not authorised dealer/ authorised support service provider of the HP branded products manufactured  by the answering Opposite Parties  and there is no privity of contract between the answering Opposite Parties on one hand and Opposite Party No.3 on the other hand, therefore Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are not liable for either replacement of the laptop in dispute or refund of the price of said laptop. However, the further averments that Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the laptop and Opposite Party No.2 are the authorised service centre of Opposite Party No.1 are true and admitted.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In its separate written reply, Opposite Party No.3 has also taken certain preliminary objections  which have already been taken by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, therefore, there is no gain-saying in reproducing the same. On merits, it is stated that contents of para No. 1 to 3 are admitted except that Opposite Party No.3 is not the retailer of Opposite Party No.2. Answering Opposite Party has sold the laptop to the complainant in the same condition as it  received from the manufacturer and even the seal of the box containing the laptop was opened in front of the complainant and complainant purchased the same after he was fully satisfied. In view of the above, the complainant against Opposite Party No.3 should be dropped  at this stage alone being not sustainable under law as well and devoid of any merits and prayer for the dismissal of the complainant was made.    
5. In his bid  to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced  copy of bill dated 22.10.2014 Ex.C2, copy of service report Ex.C3, copy of e-mail Ex.C4, copy of bill dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavits of Sh.Spurthi Mouli, authorised signatory Ex.OP1,2/1 and Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. While Sh.Pardeep Arora, counsel for Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajeev Kashyap, Cluster Manager Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
8. From the appreciation of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased HP Brand Laptop from Opposite Party No. 3  for  consideration of Rs.52,090.18 paisa vide cash memo No. CIN No. 401100MH1999PLC120563 on 21.10.2014. On  reaching home, said laptop was found defective and the very next day i.e. on 22.10.2014 the complainant took the laptop in question to the retail outlet of Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 after getting it inspected, informed the complainant that  the item has some manufacturing defect which can not be removed by them. On the proposal of Opposite Party No.3, the complainant got his laptop replaced by higher model i.e. H.P. PAV 15-P045-TX vide bill Ex.C2 after paying the differential price of Rs.7893.17 in cash on the return of the previous laptop. It is further in evidence  that the laptop in dispute did not function properly and it was  taken to Opposite Party No.2 for its repair on 7.8.2015, but however, Opposite Party No.2 did not repair the laptop in dispute and told the complainant that mother board was required to be replaced. It was disclosed to the complainant that the component number was not matching with the original system board number supplied with the product. It is further case of  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that Opposite Party No.3 was not the authorized dealer of the laptop in dispute purchased by the complainant. But, however, the stand of Opposite Party No.2  does not appear to be tenable  because it is none of the case of Opposite Party No.2 that the laptop in dispute was either opened or it was got repaired  by the complainant from some unauthorized service centre. It appears that the refusal to replace the mother board has been made simply to ward off the complaint. Other contention that Opposite Party No.3 was not the authorized dealer of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is also without any substance because no list of the authorized dealer(s) has been placed on record of the Forum by  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the reasons best known to them.  In such a situation, the case of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that Opposite Party No.3 is not the  authorized dealer for the product of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is without any merit. The complainant has spent huge amount for purchasing the high class laptop in dispute  which did not function properly even for few months. In such a situation, the only inference which can be drawn  under the circumstances, would be that  Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 are deficient in service. However, the complainant has failed to make out a case for formal/ manufacturing defect in the laptop in dispute. In such a situation, the Opposite Parties  are under legal obligation to repair the laptop in dispute and also to replace its mother board & make the laptop of the complainant work worthy.   Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 are held liable jointly, severally and co-extensively for this purpose. Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 are given one month’s time to repair the laptop in dispute & and to make the laptop work worthy, failing which, the Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.59,953.17 paisa i.e. the price of the laptop in dispute, to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.   File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 26.04.2016.                                                                 (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                                                                                                                              President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                Member                         Member