JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one HP Deamscreem 400 (Intel) Computer having Sl. No. 5CC10301FYvide Invoice No. HW/0120 dated 12.12.2012 from op no.3 the local dealer of the op no. 1on payment of Rs. 21,500/- with one year warranty.

          Subsequently on 21.11.2013, 28.11.2013 and 24.12.2013 for some complications and problems of the said computer same was repaired, just after expiry of the one year warranty period and complainant claimed that it was manufacturing defect and requested to replace the same because the said computer is not capable to give uninterrupted service.  So, complainant made such complaint, but op did not resolve it in spite of several requests.  So, subsequently on 06.11.2011 complainant sent a letter asking the op to replace the computer but till date the op did not take any action for which for negligence and deficient manner of service and also for causing harassment to the complainant, this complaint is filed praying for redressal for replacement of the computer and for compensation.

          On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that the op no.3 is not an authorized dealer or service provider of HP Branded products i.e. renowned and being manufactured by the op answering op and there is no privity before the answering op and the op no.3 and so the op nos. 1 & 2 are not responsible or liable for assurance given to the complainant by the op in its independent capacity.  But it is specifically mentioned that computer was purchased by the complainant is well established in the market over a period and customers are using this product and complainant purchased the computer being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance is quite okay for 11 months, that means complainant purchased it on 12.12.2012 and first complaint was reported on 21.11.2013.

          Further it is found that customer care centre replaced the Heat Sink Blower on 21.11.2013 and further on 28.11.2013 other complaint was there and that was also removed to the satisfaction of the complainant and on 24.12.2013 further made a complaint and the Heat Sink Blower of computer was checked and tested and in all respect ops’ service centre promptly and swiftly attended the grievance of the complainant as per problem of attendee.  So the prayers made by the complainant for requesting compensation is uncalled for and unsustainable and practically as per warranty op nos. 1 & 2 are not liable for any act of incidental or coincidental damages whatsoever including but not limited to damages, loss or profits or coincidental.  It is onus upon the complainant to prove what sort of negligence and deficiency is made by the op nos. 1 & 2 and further submitted that the entire complaint is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                       Decision with reasons

          After hearing the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and also considering the entire materials on record including the fact it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the said computer from op no.3 who is not an authorized dealer of op nos. 1 & 2 whatever it may be. Complainant continuously used the said computer since 12.12.2012 and only for the first time on 21.11.2013 Heat Sink Blower of the computer was found not working properly but it was replaced.  Thereafter some general problem was found that was also rectified on 28.11.2013 and thereafter on 24.11.2013 complainant again met with the service centre about the complaint of Heat Sink Blower of the computer that was checked and tested that the computer was OK and fine.  But anyhow in the present complaint, complainant has failed to prove any sort of negligence and deficiency on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 or their service centre.  So, apparently complainant has failed to prove the negligent and deficiency on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 in this regard.  Fact remains op no.3 is seller of the article but he is not the authorized dealer of op nos. 1 & 2.  At the same time complainant has failed to prove any sort of manufacturing defect and in view of the above fact, it is clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the ops’ service centre when service was rendered promptly and swiftly time to time and one item was replaced i.e. Heat Sink Blower and in all three occasions service was satisfactorily and computer system was apparently to the satisfaction of the complainant.

          So in view of the above situation seeking of compensation and replacement of the same is uncalled for.  But anyhow Ld. Lawyer for the complainant referred one ruling reported in III (2013) CPJ 520 NC and tried to shay no expert advice is required when defect listed in the complaint Coroborate Job Sheet placed support.  But in this case Job Sheet does not advice that there was continuous defects in all respect and out of one year of continuous service and use of the said computer by the complainant only at the fag end of the warranty period that is in the month of November-2013 only one part that is Heat Sink Blower was replaced but Heat Sink Blower may be damaged for several reasons it is not at all manufacturing defect.  Practically Heat Sink Blower is damaged as per expert opinion as ventilated in computer science book is caused due to several factor out of that one is voltage factor, another is defective electricity line of home or office and further factor is negligence for dust control etc.  Anyhow op nos. 1 & 2 service centre replaced that part that is only one part of the total computer was changed.  Thereafter it is running and the list produced by the complainant also supports that there was no other defect or manufacturing defect and complainant has failed to produce any such Job Card that continuously that defect was detected and it was noted in the Job Card. 

          So, considering that fact the ruling as referred by the complainant’s Ld. Lawyer does not attract in the present case for which we are not in a position to rely upon that judgement in view of the fact that in this case complainant has miserably failed to prove any such continuous defect time to time in respect of using the computer.  On the contrary we have gathered after handling many cases that it has become a practice of the consumer to file such a case at the end of the warranty period in all cases and such a consumer behavior should be condemned by all Fora.  It is to be kept in our mind that consumer behavior must be very honest otherwise consumer shall not have to get any benefit or relief from the Consumer Forum.  In sphere of Consumer Protection, consumer behavior is vital part for getting relief.  But now in so many cases consumer behavior is very doubtful and in the present case it is well proved that the present complainant has adopted such policy for replacement.  Though there is no manufacturing defect for continuous use of the desktop but time to time cleaning of desktop on alternative 15 days is must which is not at all maintained by any user of the computer and laptop and probably that is the cause for such problem whatever it may be we have found that that the cause for certain complications in running the said computer is common.  But that are cured.  In the result we are of opinion that there is no justified or legal ground to file this complaint at best complainant ought to have repaired the computer by the op.

          In the result, the complaint is disposed of by dismissing the same and directing the op nos. 1 & 2 to give a thorough check up and inspection of the said computer and hand over it to the complainant.

          Hence, it is

                                                                 ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the ops.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to inspect and check-up and make such repairing if so required and handover the same to the complainant with a proper receipt of the complainant and complainant shall deposit the same on proper receipt to the op nos. 1 & 2 on receipt of the same by the best engineers of their company shall check and inspect and if any repairing required that shall be done at once and hand over the same to the complainant but no change shall be assessed by the ops from the complainant.  Ops to do the same within one month positively.