DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 08 of 03-01-2011

Decided on : 20-05-2011

Naval Goyal son of Sh. Balinder Kumar Goyal R/o # 830 Shakti Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, 24 Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560030 through its GM/MD

2. Intarvo Technologies Ltd., Basement Deep Hospital, Near Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda through its GM/MD.

3. N.S. Solutions, Shop No. 4 C Public Library Complex, Gole Diggi, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner

.... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, counsel for the complainant

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

Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 exparte.

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'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one HP Laptop Pavilion DV4-1415TU Serial No. CND937608F for a sum of Rs. 43,500/- from opposite party No. 3 vide bill No. 367 dated 01-01-2010. After six months of purchase, so many defects occurred in the said laptop i.e. its optical drive was giving noise and power adopter was not charging the battery of laptop continuously and battery of the product was not giving proper backup and the battery was giving only 30 minutes backup. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 on 23-12-2010 and it got deposited the laptop and issued token No. 2674 dated 23-12-2010 against case ID No. 4624029642. On 27-12-2010, the opposite party No. 2 returned the said laptop in the same condition on the point that bill has to be verified and thereafter the complaint of the complainant would be resolved. On 30-12-2010, the opposite party No. 2 refused to remove the said defects i.e. replacement of the battery, optical disc drive and power adapter on the reason that the said articles are consumable and the warranty is not applicable on these articles. The complainant alleged that he has purchased the said laptop for his electronic business and due to defect in the laptop, the complainant is suffering heavy loss in his business. The opposite party was requested several times to admit the rights of complainant and to cure the defect or to change the laptop or to return the money to him, but the opposite parties refused to do so. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant.

2. The opposite party No. 1 filed written reply and took preliminary objection that opposite party No. 3 from whom the complainant purchased the printer is not an authorized dealer/authorized support service provider of the HP branded products i.e. the computer, laptops and printer manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the opposite party No. 1 & 3. The opposite party No. 1 is neither responsible nor liable for the assurances given by opposite party No. 3 to the complainant in its independent capacity. On merits, it has been pleaded that 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 has lodged the following complaints :

   - On 25-03-2010 vide case ID No. 4612322226 requesting for a Recovery Disk for which the customer care centre requested the service centre

   - On 27-03-2010 vide case ID No. 4612412590 requesting for upgrading of the operative system against which operating system of the laptop was upgraded.

   - On 11.11.2010 vide case ID No. 4622257626 for multiple issues in the laptop for which the customer care centre of opposite party No. 1 had requested the complainant to visit the service centre.

   - On 24-12-2010 vide case ID No. 4624029642 for the battery issue in the laptop, on inspection found that the unit was out of warranty.

   The complainant had lodged the complaints for recovery CD and in the last call lodged on 23-12-2010 vide Case ID No. 4624029642 was complaint regarding the battery issues in the laptop to opposite party No. 2 i.e. service centre of opposite party No. 1, on inspection found that the unit was out of warranty (date of purchase is 18-12-2009 and the laptop was provided with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase) as such, it had informed the complainant that unit was out of warranty, hence he has to get it repair on chargeable basis as per the terms of warranty and a quote for repairs was also given to the complainant which was not acceptable to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 pleaded that as and when the complainant had lodged the complaint and when the unit was within the warranty period, the same was rectified.

3. The opposite party No. 2 filed written reply and pleaded that complainant approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 01-02-2010 asking for some help in creating recovery DVD's which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 01-02-2010 was issued to the complainant. On proper diagnosis and test, it was realized by the service centre of opposite party No. 2 that there was no specific problem in the said laptop. However, opposite party No. 2 has created the recovery DVD of the said laptop and the same was delivered to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on the same very day. The complainant again approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 26-03-2010 reporting some OS and ODD issue, which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 26-03-2010 was issued to the complainant. The problem was properly diagnosed and tested by opposite party No. 2 and thereafter it was realized that ODD was working well but the OS was corrupted which was rectified by cleaning the ODD by lens cleaner CD and recovering the OS from original recovery DVD's provided by the complainant and the same was delivered to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on 27-03-2010. The complainant again approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 23-12-2010 reporting some lid making noise while opening and closing, low battery backup and ODD issue, which were duly entertained and a job sheet dated 23-12-2010 was issued to the complainant. The problem was properly diagnosed and tested by opposite party No. 2, it was realised that ODD was not reading or writing any Media, Hinges were making noise and battery backup was low, new ODD was required to be replaced and the same was confirmed to the complainant. The complainant was requested by service centre of Intarvo to take back the said laptop so that his work would not get interrupted and it was further requested to complainant that he would be intimated as soon as part was received by Intarvo. Thereafter the service centre of Intarvo duly ordered the ODD to HP and after receiving the same on 06-01-2011 requested the complainant to come to the service centre of Intarvo for replacement of the same, but it was utter shock and dismay of Intarvo that the complainant did not accept the request of service centre. It was intimated to the complainant on many occasions that according to the policy of HP, Intarvo has to send back the said part to HP. The lid noise was resolved by cleaning and re-fixing the hinges and as the battery capacity was reduced due to use and time, it was a natural deterioration and this it could not be replaced as per HP replacement policy.

4. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written reply and admitted that warranty of one year was given by the opposite party from the date of sale of the laptop as per guidelines of opposite party No. 1. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 which is authorised service centre of opposite party No. 1 and it is the liability of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to remove all the defects from the laptop and set right the same to the satisfaction of the customer. The opposite party No. 2 sold the laptop. At the time of sale of the laptop, it was working properly and neither there was any defect therein nor stated by the complainant. The defect has occurred after six months of the purchase of the laptop.

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

6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The complainant has purchased the laptop in question on 01-01-2010 for a sum of Rs. 43,500/- vide Ex. C-2 and accordingly, the warranty period of the laptop which was one year expired on 31-12-2011. The fact of one year warranty was also admitted by the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 i.e. service centre has admitted that complainant had approached opposite party No. 2 on 1-2-2010 asking for some help in creating recover DVD's which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 01-02-2010 was issued to the complainant. On proper diagnosis and test, it was realized by the service centre of opposite party No. 2 that there was no specific problem in the said laptop. However, opposite party No. 2 has created the recovery DVD of the said laptop and the same was delivered to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on the same very day. The complainant again approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 26-03-2010 reporting some OS and ODD issue, which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 26-03-2010 was issued to the complainant. The problem was properly diagnosed and tested by opposite party No. 2 and thereafter it was realized that ODD was working well but the OS was corrupted which was rectified by cleaning the ODD by lens cleaner CD and recovering the OS from original recovery DVD's provided by the complainant and the same was delivered to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on 27-03-2010. The complainant again approached to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 23-12-2010 reporting some lid making noise while opening and closing, low battery backup and ODD issue, which were duly entertained and a job sheet dated 23-12-2010 was issued to the complainant. The problem was properly diagnosed and tested by opposite party No. 2, it was realised that ODD was not reading or writing any Media, Hinges were making noise and battery backup was low, new ODD was required to be replaced and the same was confirmed to the complainant. The complainant was requested by service centre of Intarvo to take back the said laptop so that his work would not get interrupted and it was further requested to complainant that he would be intimated as soon as part was received by Intarvo. Thereafter the service centre of Intarvo duly ordered the ODD to HP and after receiving the same on 06-01-2011 requested the complainant to come to the service centre of Intarvo for replacement of the same, but it was utter shock and dismay of Intarvo that the complainant did not accept the request of service centre. It was intimated to the complainant on many occasions that according to the policy of HP, Intarvo has to send back the said part to HP. The lid noise was resolved by cleaning and re-fixing the hinges. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that as the battery capacity was reduced due to use and time, it was a natural deterioration and this it could not be replaced as per HP replacement policy. The complainant has deposed in para No. 3 of his affidavit that “ Due to above said problems, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 23-12-2010 and opposite party No. 2 got deposited the laptop of complainant and issued token No. 2674 dated 23-12-2010 against case ID No. 4624029642 and on the job sheet the above said problems has been mentioned and on 27-12-2010, the opposite party No. 2 has returned the laptop in the same condition on the point that bills is to be verified and after that complaint of the complainant will be resolved but on 30-12-2010 the opposite party No. 2 refused to remove the above said defects i.e. replacement of battery, optical disc drive and power adopter on the reason that the above said articles are consumables and so the warranty is not applicable on these articles.

8. A perusal of record produced on file proves that defects started occurring in the laptop in question of the complainant within six months from the date of purchase. The opposite parties have taken a plea that battery and power adopter are consumable and the optical disc drive was required to the replaced but complainant did not turn up to get it replaced, so it was returned to HP. The opposite parties have not produced on file any terms and conditions of warranty to prove that the aforesaid items are not replaceable. However, the opposite party No. 2 has admitted that ODD was required to be replaced and it was received by it from HP. Since, the defects had occurred within the warranty period in the laptop in question of the complainant, the opposite parties were liable to replace the defective parts of the laptop.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and compensation and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The complainant is directed to deliver the laptop in question to opposite party No. 2 within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 2 are directed to replace the adapter and disc drive alongwith other parts, defective if any, of the laptop of the complainant, to his entire satisfaction and handover the same to him in fully working condition against receipt.

   The opposite party No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to make the compliance of this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of laptop from the complainant. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

20-05-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member