District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.105/2021.

 Date of Institution: 25.02.2021

Date of Order: 10.08.2022.

Sachin Goel S/o Shri Narender Goyal esident of H.No. 100, Ward No.1, Near Chaturbhuj Mandir, Kumhar Wara, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad (Haryana) .

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Hewlett-Packard (HP), 24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Hosur road, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560017.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Complainant in person.

                             Sh.  Kunal Kant Sharma, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

The facts in brief of the complaint are that  he had bought an

HP laptop –dk0050tx on 05.03.2020.  Within 3 months, faced many issues like MS office expiration notifications while it was licenced product with the laptop, slow working, volume issues, battery issues and the main issue of boot up in hang mode.  For these, HP & Microsoft had reset the laptop 3-4 times, changed the SSD but the boot up in hang mode still persist.  Microsoft had confirmed that this issue can result in windows crash anytime on the basis they made a fresh windows installation.  Post that HP also done the reset.  Every reset was the whole day process.  Due to the above, he raised a complaint 2526033 on 27.01.2021 under Consumer Helpline.  They guided him to share an email to HP regarding the issue, he did.  He disabled few background tasks in booting, uninstalled the antivirus saying that sometimes issue comes due to antivirus.  Mr. Mukesh (HP Service Centre, Faridabad) asked him for  feed back within 2 days, he told, will confirm in 8-10 days but HP closed the case on 2.2.2021 without his consent.  It was high time when he faced the same issue on 06.02.2021 and communicated to Mr. Mukesh instantly through sharing the video & image of the same on whatsapp, he checked the messages at the same time but it was 09:31pm, he did not reply and even after taking a follow up on Monday afternoon, he told he would consult with the technical team and he would revert on Tuesday but he did not get any response.  Again, he filed a case 2549759 on 08.02.2021 under consumer Helpline referring the previous docket number & details.  They guided him to raise another email to HP for this & he did the same and attached the invoice copy, screen shot of the issue & a video capturing the issue.   This time HP closed the case on 13.02.2021 by lying about engineer involvement & visit.  No one visited  this time & did not get any communication as of now. If the engineer had visited again, he must had another job card or HP should had the record for the same but it was not.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                replace the laptop dk0050tx of the complainant in place defected purchased laptop which was within warranty period.

 b)                pay Rs. 87,999- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant.

2.                Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   on 05.03.2020 the complainant purchased HP-dk0050tx laptop.  It was submitted that the complainant  had reported issue in respect of the laptop in question to the customer care centre of the answering opposite party during different time intervals vide different case id numbers, that as and when the complainant had reported the MS activation, volume issue and slow boot issues in the laptop, the same were attended to promptly, the customer care representatives of the answering opposite party had resolved the issue of MS activation over and the volume issue and slow boot issue was resolved by replaced the Solid State Drive ie. Hard disk as per the terms of the warranty.  It was further submitted that the complainant had also reported issue in the battery of the laptop, but on diagnose of the battery, the same was working fine as per specification and design, the same was communicated to the complainant which was agreed by the complainant. It was submitted that the complaint reference No. 2526033 pertains to National complaint Helpline Service,    However, it was pertinent to stat that on 28.01.2021 the service engineer of the answering opposite party had visited the complainant as per his convenience, evaluated the laptop for the reported issue, found that there was no issue in the laptop as complained, hence the service engineer had collected the IDR and video and escalated the case to the technical team of the answering opposite party, the technical team verified the IDR and video and found no issue with the unit, accordingly the same was commu8nicated to the complainant  but the complainant refused to agree with the update.  The allegations against the service engineer stating that, he had disabled few background tasks in booting and uninstalled antivirus saying that some issues come due to antivirus were denied as false, the service engineer of the answering opposite party had not made any such statements nor had disabled background task or uninstalled antivirus as alleged.  The complaint lodged complaints reporting display issue in the  laptop during different time intervals vide different case ID numbers.  On receipt of the complaints, the service team of the opposite party  had attended the complaints promptly, diagnosed the unit and had resolved the reported issue by replacing the solid State Drive as per the terms  of the warranty, post service had confirmed that there was no further concerns and the laptop was working fine as per design, accordingly the service team had clarified to the complainant that the issue report was resolved.  It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, the obligations of the opposite party was only to repair the laptop and not to replace the same or to refund the costs, the service team had explained the same to the complainant, the opposite party was ready, willing and offers to resolve issues (if any) in the laptop in question and the complainant was at liberty to approach the opposite party or any of its customer care centre/authorized service centre and get the laptop diagnosed for issues (if any) and get the same resolved as per the  terms of the warranty.  In view of the aforesaid, there was no dereliction of duties/deficiency in service by the opposite party and opposite party was not liable to replace the laptop or pay compensation as claimed by the complainant as the same was neither possible or feasible as per the policy.  Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Hewlett-Packard(HP) with the prayer to: a)  replace the laptop dk0050tx of the complainant in place defected purchased laptop which was within warranty period.  b)        pay Rs. 87,999- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant.

                   Complainant has made a statement that the complaint alongwith documents already filed by him be read as the evidence of the complainant and closed the same.  Accordingly, evidence of the complainant has been closed vide order dated 05.082022.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.R-1 – Service Call report, ExR-2 -  service  call report, Ex.R-3 – warranty and support guide.

6.                In this case, the  complainant has purchased a HP laptop –dk0050tx on 05.03.2020 for an amount of Rs.86,417/- from Savex Technologies Private Limited.  The complainant has faced  problems within 3 months of   the purchase of the laptop in question such as MS office expiration notifications while it was licenced product with the laptop, slow working, volume issues, battery issues and the main issue of boot up in hang mode.  For these, HP & Microsoft had reset the laptop 3-4 times, changed the SSD but the boot up in hang mode still persist. 

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the  complainant has purchased a HP laptop –dk0050tx on 05.03.2020 for an amount of Rs.86,417/- from Savex Technologies Private Limited.  But  the complainant did not implead as a party to whom he has purchased the laptop in question.  The complainant has faced many problems within few days of the purchase of laptop in question.   In the interest of justice, the complainant is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to replace the laptop in question with a new one, subject to return the old laptop within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order.   There are no order as to costs because the complainant has not impleaded Savex Technologies Private Limited  as a party from whom he has purchased the laptop in question.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room

Announced on: 10.08.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.