DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Friday the 28^th day of June 2024

CC.149/2022

Complainants

1.         Neethu Deep,

D/o Pradeep,

Puthalath Koroth House,

Near Manikkoth temple,

Narayana Nagaram, Vatakara,

Kozhikode – 673 101.

2.        Reshma Kakkudumbil,

D/o Murali,

Puthalath Koroth House,

Near Manikkoth temple,

Narayana Nagaram, Vatakara,

Kozhikode – 673 101.

(By Adv. Subramanyian, Adv. Sri. P. Anoop, Adv. Smt. Bhavana.b, Adv Smt. Sunitha for the complainants)

Opposite Parties

1.         Hewlett Packard (HP),

24, Salarpuria Arena,

Adugodi, Hosur Road,

Bangalore – 560017,

Karnataka state.

2.         C Global,

Prathamesh Complex,

Building No. H,

                  Opp. Vatika Restaurant, Mumbau,

Nasik Highway No.3,

Bhiwandi By-pass Raod,

Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 421302.

3.         Amazon Seller Service Private Limited,

Registered office,

Brigade Gateway, 8^th floor,

26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road,

Malleswaram (W),

Bangalore -560055,

Karnataka state.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT. 

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows: 

On 18/10/2020 the second complainant had purchased a HP Spectre×360 15T Intel Core i7-10750H Hexa core, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 4k Touch Laptop as a birthday gift to the first complainant paying Rs. 1,68,029/-. The laptop was manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party through third opposite party e-commerce website.

3. But within 3 months of use, the laptop began to show patches on the display and the same soon spread to the whole laptop display. On 18/02/2022, the complainant sent an email to the HP support requesting for service of the product. On 20/02/2021 the first complainant had a telephonic conversation with the customer support agent of the first opposite party and a follow up email was also sent attaching two images. On 23/02/2021, the first complainant again sent an email attaching 2 videos of the computer screen as requested by the first opposite party. Thereafter, service representative from HP came to check the product and they returned stating that they would come on another date to collect the laptop.
4. On 01/03/2021, a customer service report was received from the first opposite party, up on which, the first complainant contacted the first opposite party again. The first complainant received a response stating that the product was purchased from outside India and that the model of the laptop was not supported in India and that a spare replacement was not possible. On 02/03/2021 an email was received stating that the case has been closed.
5. Even though the 2^nd complainant ordered the product from Australia, through the 3^rd opposite party website, the item was sold by 2^nd opposite party, an entity located in Maharashtra, India. The purchase was made or rather the payment was made from Australia is only an excuse made by the 1^st opposite party to wriggle out of the liability.
6. On the very next day, the 1^st complainant contacted the customer service team of the third opposite party and a reply was sent through a customer service executive on 03.03.2021 stating that an email had to be sent from the registered email ID through which the product  was purchased and only then could they take notice of the issue. Complying with this, since the purchase was made from the 2^nd complainant’s account with the 3^rd opposite party’s website, on 05.03.2021, an email was sent to 3^rd opposite party’s customer service wing from the 2^nd complainant’s email ID.
7. What happened after this is nothing short of a nightmare for the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant was treated with utter disregard for her time or person. She had to spend one and a half hour, chatting with at least 6 customer service agents of the 3^rd opposite party. The 2^nd complainant was emotionally exhausted by the end of explaining her issue to multiple agents. Even after painstakingly explaining her circumstances to each one of them, the 2^nd complainant was neither given a proper reply nor a resolution. As asked by the 3^rd opposite party, the second complainant provided details like product image, denial letter, invoice, IMEI, serial number etc. only to see the 3^rd opposite party’s agents denying that they had received them.
8. When the issue reached the 7^th customer executive agent named Ashim, the 2^nd complainant requested for a means for direct communication with 3^rd opposite party’s grievance redressal officers, like email ID or phone number. This was to avoid the agony of typing the issue out umpteen times. The said agent refused to provide such details. When the 2^nd complainant showed her dissatisfaction, the agent simply asked her to wait for 5-7 working days.
9. Within 2 days from this event, the 1^st complainant contacted 3^rd opposite party’s customer care and arranged a call back. The 3^rd opposite party contacted the 1^st complainant on 25.03.2021 and what followed was the 1^st complainant spending nearly two hours without any progress to her issue at all. The 3^rd respondent executive kept on debating that they could not interfere and that the complainants have to contact the seller. The first complainant requested to at least give contact detail of the second opposite party.  The third opposite party refused to entertain the plea and stated that they were not ready disclose any details or even talk to the seller.
10. The first complainant then contacted HP Calicut, the nearest service centre of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party through their customer support, replied that there was a delay in part availability for the 1^st complainant’s service and that they have escalated the issue to the case manager. On 24.09.2021, the 1^st opposite party sent an email with details of an appointment of a customer service executive who would arrive within 2 days. On 01.10.2021, the 1^st opposite party sent an email apologising for the delay due to ‘unavoidable circumstances’ and assuring that they would speed up the process. With no option left, the 1^st complainant herself  took the laptop to the HP service centre, Calicut, hoping that they would help her.
11. On 11.09.2021 as per 1^st opposite party’s request, the 1^st complainant sent the invoice of her purchase to them. Within 2 days the 1^st opposite party branch called the 1^st complainant and informed her that nothing could be done and asked her to take the product back. On 25.10.2021, 1^st complainant went to Calicut and brought her laptop back.
12. On 11.11.2021, the 1^st opposite party sent an email to the 1^st complainant stating that the matter is closed. There has been no communication from the 1^st  opposite party side since then.
13. The complainants had issued notices dated 29.11.2021 through their counsel to each of the opposite parties. But no positive action was taken to redress their grievance. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund cost of the laptop along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
14. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
15. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.

16. PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A32 were marked.
17. Heard.
18. Point No.1:-  The second complainant purchased a   HP Spectre×360 15T 2020 Intel Core i7-10750H Hexacore, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 4k Touch Laptop as a birthday gift to the first complainant paying Rs. 1,68, 029/-. The laptop is manufactured by the first opposite party, sold by the second opposite party through the third opposite party e-commerce website. The grievance of the complainants is that the laptop began to show complaints within 3 months of use as patches appeared on the display and spread to the whole of the laptop display and the opposite parties neglected to address their concerns over the laptop in spite of repeated requests.
19. PW1 is the power of attorney holder and father of the first complainant and he has filed proof affidavit also on behalf of the second complainant in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Exts A1 to A32 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainants.
20. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version and to contest the matter. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainants as Exts A1 to A32. There is no contra evidence to disprove the claim. The case of the complainants stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A32 documents. The neglect on the part of the opposite parties to address the concerns of the complainants over the laptop which was purchased spending Rs. 1,68,029/- amounts to gross deficiency of service.  The complainants are entitled to get the laptop repaired/serviced, or in the alternative, refund of the price. The complaints are also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties    are jointly and severally liable. 
21. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                  a)  CC.149/2022 is allowed in part.  

b)  The   opposite parties are hereby directed to repair/service the HP Spectre×360 15T 2020 Intel Core i7-10750H Hexacore, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD 4k Touch Laptop purchased by the second complainant  and make it in a sound working condition within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, or else, refund the purchase price of Rs. 1,68,029/- to the   second complainant, after taking back the laptop. It is made clear that the complainants shall not be required to pay any charges for the said repair/service.

c)  The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainants.

     Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 28^th day of June, 2024.

           Date of Filing:   28.06.2022            

                        Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                      

        APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1- Printout of product description.

Ext A2- Printout of Invoice cum order details dated 18.10.2020

Ext A3 – Printout of tax invoice/Bill of supply/ Cash memo dated 18/10/20

Ext A4- Printout of packing slip

Ext A5- Printout of product warranty

Ext A6- Printout of product warranty status.

Ext A7- Printout of email  dated 18/02/2021

Ext A8- Printout of email acknowledging complaint.

Ext A9- Printout of email dated 18/02/2021.

Ext A10- Printout of email dated 23/02/2021.

Ext A11- Printout of customer service report

Ext A12- Printout of email dated 01/03/2021

Ext A13- Printout of email dated 2/03/2021

Ext A14- Printout of email dated 03/03/2021

Ext A15- Printout of email dated 05/03/2021

Ext A16- Printout of chat history between 2^nd complainant and customer service agents.

Ext A17- Printout of email acknowledging complaint dated 11/09/2021.

Ext A18- Print out of email dated 11/09/2021.

Ext A19- Printout of token No. 107020.

Ext A20- Printout of email acknowledging request for service dated 24/09/2021.

Ext A21- Printout of email dated 01/10/2021

Ext A22- Resolution summary

Ext A23- Notice with postal receipt dated 29.11.2021.

Ext A24- Notice with postal receipt 29.11.2021.

Ext A25- Notice with postal receipt 29.11.2021.

Ext A26- Returned cover.

Ext A27- Reply notice dated 24.01.2022.

Ext A28- Reply notice with postal receipt dated 08/02/2022.

Ext A29- Notice with postal receipt and acknowledgment card.

Ext A30- Reply notice dated 12.02.2022.

Ext A31- Notice with postal receipt.

Ext A32- Reply notice dated 07.03.2022.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

NIL

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  - Pradeep.P.K  (Power of Attorney holder)

Witnesses for the opposite party

                        Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                      

                                 True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                         Assistant Registrar.