Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

466/2006

C.Subramaniam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hewlett Package India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,Manager & others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ananthakrishnan

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   14.08.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.466/2006

WEDNESDAY THIS  15^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

C. Subramaniam, 

No.5, Jeth Nagar,

II Cross Street,

R.A.Puram,

Chennai 600 028.                                .. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        ..Vs..

1.  Hewlett – Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Jeypore Hall, 241, Peters Road,

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. The Managing Director,

M/s. Hewlett-packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

No.24, Salarpuria Arena,

Adugodi, Hosur Road,

Bangalore 560 030.

 

3. M/s. Laptops Plus,

Rep. by its Authorizsed Signatory,

F-199A 1^st Floor,

Spencer Plaza, Phase –III,

(Behind Zimson Near Land Mark),

Chennai 600 002.                                            ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant              : M/s. K.Ananthakrishnan & others   

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 &2 : M/s.J.M.Dharma Sanjeevi & others

Counsel for the opposite party-3        : Exparte

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  a brand new laptop or its equivalent model and also to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- towards loss in purchasing a new laptop and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and loss of data information and records and to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant doing his doctorate purchased a Compaq Presario M2225AP note book computer –sino CNF5310TRM manufactured by opposite parties 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.48,000/- under invoice No.SC/LP/05-06/0723 on 27.8.2005.     In this regard, the opposite party gave one year warranty.  The complainant has been using the said laptop properly and diligently for his project works and complainant started his data, research materials, information etc.  While so the said laptop started giving problem and failed to boot to do during the month of April 2006.   Therefore, the complainant contacted the opposite party for rectifying the defects in the  Laptop from his father’s friend namely Mr.Senthilkumar of M/s. Precision Informatic Pvt. Limited.   The 1t opposite party  had returned the said Laptop only after few weeks claiming to have rectified the problem.  

2.     Again in the month of May 2006, the laptop was troubling with the same problem and hence he was handed over to the 1^st opposite party.  In this regard, the 1stop had issued a customer service order receipt via call reference No.2208708906 dated 25.5.2006.   At that time, the complainant has scheduled to visit Japan in this connection with his project.   Therefore, he was in dire need to laptop.  However, the 1^st opposite party had returned the laptop only on 29.5.2006.  On receipt of laptop the complainant found that the defect was not rectified.   Moreover, the complainant did not have the entire backed up data stored in the laptop.   A few of the essential data were also deleted completely and irretrievable.   The trip to Japan would prove totally useless without the necessary data and a laptop.   Therefore, he was constrained to purhcaed another laptop model NO.V262OTS from M/s. Precision Galaxy Pvt. Ltd.  For a sum of Rs.51,000/- in his father’s name and the same was brought on the day of his departure to Japan.

 

3.       Thus there was loss of information, data, record etc.  due to which the complainant was put to irreparable mental agony and torture.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 15.6.2006 and reminder notice dated 22.6.2006 and the final notice dated 21.7.2006 to the opposite parties.  Even then, the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects.  Hence this complaint is filed.

 

 

4. Written Version of 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties are  in brief as follows:

       The averments and allegations made by the complainant are wrong and untenable and they are accordingly denied.    Through the laptop was purchased for the use of the said C.Subramanian, but it appears that the laptop had been used by persons other that the said C.Subramanian.   At the evident in the CSO dated 4.6.2006, the laptop has been in possession and use of one business organization called precision Informatics Private Limited.   One Mr.Senthil Kumar identifying himself as the user and customer had produced the laptop with the bill and availed service of the laptop.   Mr.Senthilkumar expressed his difficulty in using the system saying that on his usage he found that the system was not booting.   His complaint was recorded and the mother board was duly replaced and the system was tested in the presence of Mr.Senthilkumar and found to be working fine.  The fact that the system was working fine was duly acknowledged by Mr.Senthilkumar.

5.     Subsequently, Mr.Chandralmouli identifying himself as the customer and user approached the first opposite party  reporting difficulty in usage and claimed free service and replacement of the mother board.   The opposite party immediately obliged and replaced the mother board to the satisfaction of the user Chandramouli.   Much as the laptop had come to take delivery only on 29.5.2006.  When the complainant by his own admission suggests that another person had handed over the laptop and taken delivery of the same, his allegation that he informed the opposite parties and the laptop was returned not rectified are totally false.    The complainants ‘s allegation that he purchased another laptop is false.  The alleged purchase of another laptop by the complainant cannot be attributed to a false allegation that he had stored data and hence since the data was deleted he had to purchase a new laptop.  The opposite parties deny that they are liable for any alleged loss of information, data, record of the complainant.  

6.     There is an admission that the system was working fine and the same was duly signed by Mr.Sentil of Precision informatics.  This admission is made not by the technician but is admitted by the third party user of the machine.    Since the laptop was working fine and there was no further complaint by the complainant this opposite party found no need for replacement of the laptop.   There has been multiple user of the machine by third  parties and the complainant handed over the laptop to third parties cannot today claim mental agony and damages for alleged mental agony, torture loss of alleged records.   The complainant has thus no right for replacement as there has been breach of warranty by the complainant.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.     Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party-3 is called absent and set exparte.

8.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 marked.   Proof affidavit of opposite parties 1 & 2 filed and Ex.B1 also marked.

9.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

 

10.             Written arguments of complainant not filed.   Written argument filed and oral argument adduced by the opposite party-1.

11. Point No.1:-

 ­       According to the case of the complainant, it is learnt that the father of the complainant herein has represented on behalf of the complainant through power of attorney is marked as Ex.A1.  Since the complainant is an integrated Ph.D. student of I.I.T. Madras which is marked as Ex.A2. doing doctorate now at Japan.  It is further stated by the complainant that who being a Doctorate to carry the existing data with him on his trip to Japan.   He had purchased the laptop from the 3^rd party on 27.8.2005 for a sum of Rs.48,000/- which is marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are the certificate for doing Doctorate research in I.I.T., Chennai and invitation for the complainant to Japan respectively.   Further, it is seen from the evidence that the complainant had stored all the available particulars in the laptop and during April’2006 the laptop was not functioning in which there was a problem in booting and therefore he has contacted the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defect and in turn it was returned by the 1st opposite party only after few weeks claiming to have rectified the problem.   But again in the month of May 2006 the laptop was troubling with the same problem and hence was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for repair and  in this regard the 1^st opposite party had issued  customer service order receipt  which is marked as Ex.A4.   It is further stated by the complainant that the complainant has scheduled to visit to Japan and abroad in need to computer the complainant was forced to purchase a new laptop from the opposite party-3 and the invoice of the same is marked as ExA5 and the customer order receipt which is marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7.

12.      Further going through the evidence of the complainant,  it is learnt that in fact when the 1^st opposite party had returned the laptop on 29.5.2006.  It was found that the alleged problem in the laptop was not rectified and also the entire back up of  the data stored in the laptop have been destroyed.   Therefore the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.A8 and the reminder notice Ex.A9 to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the final notice Ex.A10 have been issued to all the opposite parties and in spite of acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice the opposite party has not come forward to comply the demands of the complainant.

13.    While being so, on perusal of the evidence of opposite parties 1 & 2 it is stated that it is true that the alleged laptop was purchased but actually it was used by the complainant herein and it appears to have been used by the 3^rd party by name one Mr.Senthilkumar identifying himself as the user and customer had produced the laptop with the bill and availed service of the laptop and his complaint was recorded and the mother board was duly replaced and the system was tested in the presence of Mr.Senthilkumar and found to be working fine.   Therefore the allegation is that the laptop was returned without  repair is false and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Ex.B1 is the Limited Warranty and technical support issued by the opposite parties 1 & 2 at the time of selling the laptop to the complainant which clearly reveals the condition of the limited warranty, it is clear instruction that there is no replacement of compaq’s laptop when it was used by third part other than purchaser.

14.    At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is an admitted case that the complainant had purchased the laptop from the opposite party-3 through invoice Ex.A3 and at that time Ex.B1 the limited warranty also given to the complainant.  It is further seen that one Mr.Senthil Kumar identifying himself as the user and customer had produced the laptop with the bill and availed service of the laptop from opposite party-1, and in turn the mother board was duly replaced and the system was tested in the presence of Mr.Senthi kumar and found to be working fine and the same was acknowledged by the said person.  It is further learnt that subsequently Mr.Chandramouli identifying himself as the customer and the user approached, the 1st opposite party reporting difficulty in usage and claimed free service and replacement of the mother board and the same was immediately obliged and replaced by the opposite party-1 to the satisfaction of the user Chandramouli.  The above said fact have been noticed very well through Ex.A4, Ex.A6, and Ex.A7 in which clearly mentioned in the name of customer as one Mr.Senthilkumar  and another as Mr.Chandramouli they are not the purchaser as per Ex.A3.   In such circumstances, it is crystal clear that the complainant himself on his own admission, through another person, he had handed over the laptop and taken delivery of the same.  Not only that the said laptop has been used by the 3^rd party as their own admission, that they are user of the said laptop. 

 

15.    In such circumstances, as per Ex.B1 limited warranty, it is clearly explained that “the limited warranty extends only to the original purchaser or lessee of the Compaq branded product and is not transferable to anyone who obtains ownership of the Compaq branded product from the original purchaser or lessee”  and if it is no there is no question of replacement of unit of Compaq does not arise.   In furtherance it is very well seen from the averments made in the complaint that the complainant himself admitted that on 7.6.2006 and 13.6.2006 the problem took place in the laptop has been rectified and the new board replaced. 

 

16.     Regarding the allegation that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 the complainant was constrained to purchase a new computer from opposite party-3 for Rs.51,000/- through the invoice Ex.A5.  In this regard, it is pertinent to note that one Mr.Senthil Kumar was indentifying by the complainant as his friend and the 3^rd opposite party is one and the same person and  the address of the opposite party-3  given in the cause title of the complaint and in Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A6, and Ex.A7 are the customer service order and the invoice is one and the same.  It  clearly shows that the opposite party-3 is the close friend of the complainant.   At this point of time as already discussed above in the previous para, the said Mr.Senthil Kumar himself acknowledged for the right function of the alleged laptop after replacing the mother board.  Therefore it is needless  say that the deficiency of service has not been proved.   Similarly the other allegations made in the complaint also have not been proved.   Further, it  goes to say that the complainant has not moved this forum with clean hand by suppressing certain material facts.  Thus point-1 is answered accordingly.

 

17.      POINT No.2:-

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

      Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  15^th  day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  26.5.2006 - Copy of proof of complainant pursuing doctoral research in

                              I.I.T. by way of approval letter.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Invitation for the complainant.

Ex.A3- 27.8.2005  - Copy of invoice issued by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A4- 25.5.2006  - Copy of customer order issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of invoice for the purchase of second laptop.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of another customer order receipt.

Ex.A7- 13.6.2006  - Copy of customer service order issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A8- 15.6.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A9- 22.6.2006  - Copy of reminder notice issued by the complainant.

Ex.A10- 21.7.2006         - Copy of Final notice issued by the complainant to all the

                              Opposite parties. 

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of Product Limited Warranty periods.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.