DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 416 of 13-09-2010

Decided on : 30-03-2011

Krishan Garg S/o Sh. Ved Parkash, R/o 225 Street No. 10, Pukhraj Colony, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24 Salarpuria, Arena Building, Adugodi, Hosar Road, Banglore through its Managing Director/Chairman/Manager.

2. The complete Computer Stationers, Lane No. 6, Lower Mall, Near Bhana Mal Trust, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partners.

3. H.P. Authorised Service Centre, Basement of Deep Super Speciality Hospital G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Incharge/Proprietor/Partner

4. H.P. Authorised Service Centre, RT Outsourcing Service Limited, C-69, Sector-58, Noida 201 301 through its Incharge/Proprietor/partner

.... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Rajan Singla, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Shaminder Singh, counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Rakesh Kumar, A.R. of opposite party No. 3.

Sh. Rajiv Goyal, opposite party no. 2 in person

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for purchasing Laptop for his son and he alleged himself as authorised dealer of opposite party No. 1 i.e. HP Company. Under the assurance of opposite party No. 2, the complainant had purchased a Laptop for a sum of Rs. 45,275/- having Sr. No. CND9324G8T (HP PVA.DV4-1318) vide Invoice No. 1405 dated 4-9-09. The opposite party No. 2 provided one year guarantee for the said Laptop in case of any type of defect has arisen. In the month of December, 2009, the said Laptop started giving some problem as during operation, screen of laptop becomes bluish in colour and shut off automatically. After sometime when Laptop was again started, the same problem arose again. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 and explained the problem. The opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant to approach opposite party No. 3 which is authorised service centre of opposite party No. 1. the complainant approached opposite party No. 3 and it after checking the Laptop, retained the same for repair. After few days, the Laptop was returned to the complainant saying that the Laptop was working properly, but the Laptop did not function properly. On 09-01-2010, the complainant again approached opposite party No. 3 and complained the same problem. Again after checking the Laptop, the opposite party No. 3 retained it for repairs and issued Service Call Report No. 1553 dated 09-01-2010 with the problem of Blue Dump error. On 21-01-2010 after 12 days, the opposite party No. 3 returned the Laptop with the assurance that the Laptop was working properly and obtained the signatures of the complainant on his Service Call Report. Thereafter the complainant handed over the said Laptop to his son who is studying at Noida. But, the Laptop again did not function properly. In the month of June, 2010 the son of the complainant visited Bathinda and complained with regard to same problem i.e. Blue dump Error and the Laptop was again handed over to opposite party No. 3 for its repair. The opposite party No. 3 again issued the Service Call Report No. 2061 dated 2/9-06-2010, but after sometimes, it was returned with the assurance that defects have been removed, but the said Laptop did not work properly. In the month of August, 2010, the Laptop again started giving the same problem, it automatically switched off i.e. Blue Dump Error. On 18-08-2010, the son of the complainant approached opposite party No. 4, who is also authorised service centre of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 4 retained the Laptop and issued Service Call Report No. L-20 dated 18-08-2010 with the error of Blue Dump Error. The complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect of Blue Dump Error in the Laptop. On 01-09-2010 after 14 days, the opposite party No. 4 has returned the Laptop to the complainant with the assurance that the same is working properly, but the complainant is still not satisfied with the working of the Laptop. The complainant alleged that the said Laptop is within the guarantee period and he is entitled for the replacement of the Laptop with a new one or in the alternative, he is entitled for its refund. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to replace the Laptop but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2. The opposite party No. 1 filed written reply and admitted that Laptop in question was manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and it was provided with one year guarantee and opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1. It has been submitted that though the opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1, it is neither responsible nor liable for the assurance given by it in its personal capacity. The company has an efficient Complaint Redressal Department and Customer Care Centers with 24 hours toll free numbers and on verifying customer care data base, based on serial number of product purchased by the complainant in the present case, it was found that the complainant had lodged the following complaints :-

   On 28-05-2010 vide Case I.D. No. 4615082332 complaint regarding the Blue dump Error in the Laptop for which the Customer Care Centre of opposite party No. 1 updated the Operating System and resolved the issue upon which the unit was working fine.

   On 10-06-2010 and 18-06-2010 vide Case I.E. No. 4615930318 and 4615985443 complaint regarding the blue dump error and operating system issues for which the Customer Care Centre of opposite party No. 1 again updated the operating system and reinstalled the drivers to rectify the issues thereupon on observing the Laptop was working fine without any problem.

3. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that as and when the complainant has lodged the complaints, the same were promptly attended and the issues were rectified by updating the Operating System, reinstalling the drivers and after repairs, the system was working fine and the complainant has also acknowledged the receipt of the Laptop mentioning that the laptop is working properly in the service call report. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted that complainant had deposited the Laptop with opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The opposite party No. 4 admitted that Laptop has error of blue dump error vide Service Call Report No. L-20, however the same was rectified by updating the Operating System and Software after which the system was working fine. The opposite party No. 1 has denied manufacturing defect in the said Laptop. It has been pleaded that the complainant has miserably failed to submit any expert report to support allegations i.e. a report from an “appropriate laboratory” as per Circular letter No. DD No. 10/39/97 CPUT dated June 13,1988 issued under Section 2(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act to substantiate the allegations of manufacturing defects in the Laptop. The opposite party No. 1 has admitted that Laptop is within the warranty period. The opposite party No. 1 has acted in a reasonable manner and attended to all the complaints lodged by the complainant as such, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party No. 1.

4. The opposite party No. 2 in its written reply pleaded that the complainant visited opposite party No. 2 only to compare their prices with the prices of laptops of the companies available in the market. No recommendation was made to him regarding purchase of any specific company laptop as opposite party No. 2 is not authorised dealers and so having no interest to sell any particular laptop. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 2 never gave any guarantee/warranty and one year warranty is given by the company as per term and conditions of the warranty of the company. The complainant never told the opposite party No. 2 about the problem. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that if the complainant had lodged the complaint with them, they would have lodged the complaint with company service centre for repairing the laptop as per terms and conditions of the warranty.

5. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written reply has pleaded that complainant approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 3 on 4-12-2009 reporting some Blue Dump Error problem in the laptop which problem were duly entertained and a job sheet dated 4-12-2009 was issued to the complainant. The said problem were rectified by opposite party No. 3 by replacing the RAM and delivered/handed over the same to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 admitted that complainant also approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 3 on 9-01-2010, 09-06-2010 and 18-08-2010 reporting some Blue Dump Error problem in his laptop. The problems were rectified and job sheets were issued to the complainant. The Blue Dump Error issued might come due to dust in the laptop and due to dust such problem might occurred but being customer friendly company and as a goodwill gesture, the service centre has replaced the RAM and reinstall the operating system (OS) and service the unit on each occasion. The laptop is a technical product and should be used as per the guidelines issued therewith. It has been pleaded that as a service provider opposite party No. 3 has discharged its duty diligently and provided all possible services and assistance to the complainant whenever he visited to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 3 and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3.

6. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

7. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

8. The complainant purchased a laptop from opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 45,275/- having serial no. CND9324G8T(HP PV A.DV4-1318) vide invoice No. 1405 dated 04.09.2009. The opposite party No. 2 provided one year guarntee for the said laptop in case of any type of defect arose in it. In the month of December 2009, the said laptop started giving some problems as during operation screen of laptop used to becomes bluish in colour and shut off automatically. After some time when laptop was again started, the same problem again arose. The complainant approached opposite party no. 2 and explained the problem. The opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant to approach opposite party no. 3, an authorised service centre of opposite party No. 1. The complainant approached opposite party no. 3, it after checking the laptop retained the same for repair, after few days the laptop was returned to the complainant and it was told to him that laptop was working properly but the laptop did not function properly. On 09.01.2010, the complainant approached opposite party No. 3 and complained the same problem. The opposite party no. 3 issued service call report no. 1553 dated 09.01.2010 with the problem of blue dump error. On 21.01.2010, after 12 days the opposite party no. 3 returned the laptop with assurance that the laptop was working properly and obtained the signature of complainant on his service call report. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the laptop to his son who is studying at Noida, but the laptop in question did not work properly. In the month of June 2010, the son of complainant visited Bathinda and complained with regard to the same problem i.e. blue dump error and the laptop was handed over to opposite party no. 3 for its repair, it again issued the service call report No. 2061 dated 02/9-6-2010, but after some time it was returned with the assurance that the defects have been removed but again it did not work properly. In the month of August 2010, the laptop again started giving the same problem of automatically switched off i.e. blue dump error. On 18.10.2010, the son of complainant approached opposite party No 4 who is also authorized service centre of opposite party no. 1. The opposite party No. 4 retained the laptop and issued service call report No. L-20 dated 18.08.2010 with the error of blue dump error. The complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect of blue dump error in the laptop. On 01.09.2010, after 14 days the opposite party has returned the laptop to the complainant with the assurance that the same is working properly, but the complainant is not satisfied with the laptop in question. The complainant further submitted that there is manufacturing defect in the laptop and all the defects had occurred in the laptop during the warranty period.

9. The opposite party no. 1 is the manufacturer of the said laptop and provided one year warranty. The opposite party no. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1. Although the opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party no. 1, it is neither responsible nor liable for assurance given by it in its personal capacity. The complainant has lodged the complaint on 28.05.2010 vide case ID no. 4615082332 regarding the blue dump error in the laptop in question for which the customer care of opposite party no. 1 updated the operating system and resolve the issue upon which the unit started working fine. On 16.06.2010 and 18.06.2010 vide case I.E No. 4615930318 and 4615985443 respectively, complaint regarding the blue dump error and operating system was issued for which the customer care centre of opposite party no. 1 again updated the operating system.

10. The opposite party no. 1 has submitted that as and when the complainant has lodged the complaint the same was rectified. It has denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the laptop and the complainant has failed to submit any report to support his this allegation.

11. The opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complainant visited opposite party No. 2 only to compare their prices with the prices of laptops of different companies available in the market. The opposite party no. 2 has never given any guarantee/warranty and the one year warranty is given by the company as per terms and conditions of the warranty of the company. The complainant approached the service centre of opposite party no. 3 on 04.12.2009 reporting some blue dump error in laptop, the problem was duly entertained and the job sheet dated 04.12.2009 was issued to the complainant. The said problem was rectified by opposite party No. 3 by replacing RAM and handed over the same to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party no. 3 admitted that the complainant also approached to the service centre i.e. opposite party no. 3 on 09.01.2010 and 09.06.2010 and 18.08.2010 reporting some blue dump error problem in his laptop. The problems were rectified and job sheets were issued to the complainant. The blue dump error might come due to dust in laptop and being a customer friendly company and as a good will gesture. The service centre has replaced the RAM and re-installed the operating system and serviced the unit on each occasion.

12. These are the admitted facts of both the parties that the laptop in question was within warranty and the RAM problem occured many times which has been rectified by the opposite parties but despite rectifying these problems relating to RAM, the said laptop is not working properly. The opposite parties during arguments have submitted that the motherboard of the said laptop has been changed once by them. The complainant has purchased this laptop for his son for his studies. Every time whenever any defect occured in it, the complainant had to approach his father at Bathinda who in turn approached the opposite party No. 3 for its repair. Once, the son of the complainant also approached to opposite party No. 4 i.e. the authorized service centre of opposite party no. 1 at Noida also.

13. The opposite parties have taken a plea that the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to show that there is manufacturing defect in the said laptop. A perusal of job sheet placed on file vide Ex. C-4 reveals that it is mentioned in the column of diagnosis “need to be proper diagnosis laptop received” and thereafter the opposite party kept the laptop with it which means that the opposite parties have sent the laptop for the proper diagnosis. Vide Ex. C-5 dated 09.01.2010 also, the same wording has been written on the service call report that “need to be proper diagnosis”. This time the laptop was received by the complainant on 21.01.2010. A perusal of job sheet shows that the said laptop has been sent for the diagnosis. Therefore, the expert report must have been received by the opposite parties themselves of their own. The expert report has not been placed on file by the opposite party No. 3. The inference can be drawn that if the report was in the favour of the opposite parties, they must have placed that in their evidence. Hence, no expert report is required in the present case as the laptop has already been diagnosed by the expert and the defect could not be removed even after repeated repairs. Thus, it reveals that the fault is beyond repairs and it is a manufacturing defect.

14. Therefore, what has been discussed above, this forum is of the considered of view that there is manufacturing defect in the said laptop as it has been creating the same problems time and again. Hence, this complainant is accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party nos. 1 & 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2 & 4. The opposite parties nos. 1 & 3 are directed to replace the said laptop with same model, brand and specifications with new one with fresh warranty or to refund its price i.e. Rs. 45,275/-. The laptop in question is in the possession of the complainant. The complaint is directed to hand over the laptop alongwith accessories to the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Authorized service centre within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 are directed to replace or refund the amount of the said laptop within next 30 days. The compliance of this order as whole be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 3, the interest @ 9% P.A. will yield on the amount of Rs. 45,275/- till realisation.

     

     

15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.

Pronounced

30-03-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni) Presidet

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member