Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,  Member

1.       Sh.Balwinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased one Note Book from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No. 1830 date 12.12.2013 for Rs.37000/-, being manufactured/ marketed by Opposite Party No.1, whereas Opposite Party No.3 is Authorised Service Centre. Hence the complainant is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is alleged that said note book   became non functional due to hang, slow processing and heat up problem since 9.5.2015. In this regard, the complainant made complaint several times to Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre, who tried to rectify the defects in the product in question, but could not succeed. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre kept the product in question with them for rectifying its defect, but till the filing of the instant complaint, the said note book is not rectified by the Opposite Parties. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant lastly visited Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre on 29.9.2016 on their call  and told that the product was ready, but even then the said defects were not removed and the note book is having hang problem. It is worthwhile to mention over here that the said note book is under the warranty period till 12.12.2016. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties  in not repairing the note book to the satisfaction of the complainant inspite of warranty period is an act of deficiency in service, mal-practice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to set right the note book of the complainant to his satisfaction or in alternative replace it with new one of the same make and model or upgraded model of the same make or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.37,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 12.12.2013 till realisation.

b)      Opposite Parties  be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.  

c)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.

d)      Any other consequential relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and  fair play be also be awarded.          

Hence this complaint.                

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.11.2016 of this Forum.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement by taking  certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of replying Opposite Party. The present complaint is the blatant abuse of the process of law. The answering Opposite Party has falsely been implicated in the present case and has been without any legal justification arrayed as party in the complaint as the replying Opposite Party is only a sale point of its principle Opposite Party No.1 in respect of HP products on the terms and conditions as prescribed its principal; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Opposite Party; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the replying Opposite Party No.2.    On merits, it is admitted to be correct that Opposite Party No.2 sold one HP make laptop (note book) to the complainant. It is further averred that answering Opposite Party is only a sales point for HP products & is known as ‘HP World’ & is a certified dealer for the period 2013-2014 for retailing HP products subject to the terms and conditions viz. warranty provided by  Opposite Party No.1. It is matter of record that whether the note book of the complainant is under warranty till 12.12.2016. Attending to the after sale service is the sole responsibility of Opposite Party No.3, but  however, answering Opposite Party is only a sale point of HP products as mentioned above. Opposite Party No.3 is the authorised service centre and attends to the after sale service of the customers of HP products and thus, answering Opposite Party is not responsible for the alleged acts & omissions of the other parties as alleged.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied.  Hence, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint against Opposite Party No.2  with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of invoice Ex.C2, copies of job sheets Ex.C3 to Ex.C12, copy of extended warranty certificate Ex.C13 and  closed his evidence.

5.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Varinder Singh, Ex.OP2/1, copy of retail invoice Ex.OP2/2, copy of certificate of dealership Ex.OP2/3 and  closed the evidence.

6.       We have heard the arguments of ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Dinesh Kumar, authorised representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       From the appraisal of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase the one Note Book from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No. 1830 date 12.12.2013 of Rs.37000/-, being manufactured/ marketed by Opposite Party No.1, whereas Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C2. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that after the purchase the note book in question i.e. since 9.5.2015, it is not working properly and having hang problem, besides slow processing and heat up problem. In this regard, the complainant made complaint several times to Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre, who tried to rectify the defects in the product in question, but could not succeed. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre kept the product in question with them for rectifying its defect, but till the filing of the instant complaint, the defect in the said note book is not rectified by the Opposite Parties. It is further argued that the  complainant lastly visited Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre on 29.9.2016 on their call  and told that the product was ready, but even then the said defects were not removed and the note book is having same hang problem. It is worthwhile to mention over here that the said note book is under the warranty period till 12.12.2016. On the other hand, Sh.Dinesh Kumar, representative of Opposite Party No.2 appeared and stated that Opposite Party No.3 is only a sales point for HP products & is known as ‘HP World’ & is a certified dealer for the period 2013-2014 for retailing HP products subject to the terms and conditions viz. warranty provided by  Opposite Party No.1. It is further argued that it is not known to it whether the note book of the complainant is under warranty till 12.12.2016. Moreover, with regard to the ‘after sale service’, it is averred that  it is the  sole responsibility of Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 is the authorised service centre and attends to the after sale service of the customers of HP products and thus, Opposite Party No.2 is not responsible for the alleged acts & omissions of the other parties as alleged.

8.       In order to support his case, the complainant alongwith his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, has also produced on record the invoice regarding the purchase of the product i.e. note book Ex.C2,  copies of job sheets Ex.C3 to Ex.C12 and copy of warranty card Ex.C13,  but however, Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3  even did not dare to appear before this Forum despite due service. On the other hand, the representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 has vehemently submitted in its written reply as well as  duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Varinder Singh, partner of M/s.G.M.Trading International Ghaio Mal & Sons Building, Amritsar Ex.OP2/1 that it is only  Opposite Party No.3 who is solely responsible for ‘after sale service’ of the product. The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged  as none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that note book purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties vide   Invoice Ex.C2 soon became defective. The complainant sent so many complaints to Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre vide job sheets Ex.C3 to Ex.C12 for the repair of the product in question, but the engineer/ mechanic  of Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre could not do the needful for rectifying the defects in the note book in question.

9.       It is not disputed that the note book in question has been purchased by the complainant   from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice No. 1830 date 12.12.2013, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C2. But however, perusal of the first job sheet Ex.C3 shows the complainant made complaint with Opposite Party No.3 i.e.Authorised Service Centre regarding the defect in the note book in question on 9.5.2015 i.e. after about 1½ years from the date of its purchase and no complaint has ever been made or alleged by the complainant to Opposite Parties  regarding any defect in the product  in question prior to that. It shows that the note book in question may smoothly worked for about 1 ½ years. In this way,   the complainant has not been able to prove that the note book was suffering from any manufacturing defect, so as to get the relief of replacement of the same with a new one of same make and model. But however,  it is proved on record that the note book in dispute being defective, failed to give proper service to the complainant and the Opposite Parties have  failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, despite making complaints in this regard. As such, Opposite Parties  are deficient in service.   Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

10.     Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant with costs and the Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3  are directed to repair the note book in question to the satisfaction of the complainant, without any charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compliance of this order be made within stipulated period; failing which, the Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3  jointly and severally are liable to refund the price of the note book in question.  Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3  are also directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.5,000/- beside costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum