DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==================

Neena Paul w/o B.R. Paul, resident of House No.32, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

                                                 ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]       Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Office:-

       24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi, Hasur Road, Bangalore – 560 030.

       Chandigarh Office:-

       SCO No. 58, Second Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh –160020.

[2]       FASTRACK COMPUTING LTD., SCO No. 63, Sec. 20-C, Chandigarh – 160 020.

[3]   RT OUTSOURCING SERVICE LTD., SCO No.128-129, First Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Atul Sharma, Adv for Complainant.

Sh. Vipul Dhirmani, Adv for OP No.1.

Sh. Inder Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

None for OP No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           A complaint regarding alleged manufacturing defect in a Laptop within the period of warranty.

              The Complainant had purchased a Laptop manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2. He had paid a sum of Rs.51,500/- as per invoice (Annexure C-1). The Complainant has stated that the Laptop had some inherent manufacturing defect and started giving problems soon after its purchase. The Laptop kept on hanging regularly and used to get heated up very soon. The Laptop was thus given to the service center in February, 2010, when the entire software including operating system and drivers were reinstalled. As the problem continued, the Laptop was again taken to the service center in March and April, 2010, but the problem still persisted. Thereafter, the Complainant was assured in May, 2010 that if the motherboard was changed the problem would not reoccur. However, the problem is still persisting and now even the authorized service center had refused to take the Laptop even though it was still under warranty.  The Complainant hence served a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but when her grievance was not redressed, she has filed the present complaint, with a prayer for refund of the amount spent, along with compensation and costs of litigation.  The Complainant has attached all job cards in support of her contentions.

2.           After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.           Opposite Party No.1 in reply have denied every averment and allegation made in the complaint. They have submitted that the product manufactured by them are of good quality and they extend their service to their customers throughout the country. The complaints made by the Customer at the Toll Free No. had been redressed. OPs have further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the Laptop as alleged by the Complainant. Also as the Complainant has not submitted any Expert Report from any appropriate laboratory, there is no proof about her allegations. Opposite Party No.1 has, therefore, also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.           Opposite Party No.2 in reply has stated that the complaint is not maintainable against them as they are only a sale center of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant never approached them regarding any problem in the Laptop. In fact the Complainant has herself stated that she visited the authorized service center for removal of all defects in the Laptop. Opposite Party No.2 has therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint against them as there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.           Opposite Party No.3 in reply has stated that the Complainant had approached them being service center of Opposite Party No.2 with some Adaptor problem. The problem was entertained and the Laptop was rectified as per the job sheet dated 23.02.2010. Thereafter, the Complainant approached them again with problem of hanging/ play games/ blur display intermittent. The problem was also rectified as per job sheet dated 21.4.2010. All other contentions of the Complainant have been denied by Opposite Party No.3 being false and frivolous. Opposite Party No.3 has further submitted that the behaviour of the Complainant clearly exhibits her malafide  intention to pressurize Opposite Party No.3 to succumb to her illegal demands for illegal gain.

6.           During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the Complainant placed on record an application for getting an expert opinion on the Laptop. The learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 contested this application, saying that it is highly belated. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 gave their no objection for the permission to getting the Laptop in question examined. The Laptop was accordingly sent to the PEC University of Technology, Sector 12, Chandigarh, for testing. As per the report of the Process Server, the PEC refused to accept the Laptop. Hence, office was directed to find an appropriate govt. laboratory for testing the Laptop. As no specific laboratory in Chandigarh was found, the following order was passed on 27.09.2011:-

“However, the Complainant if so wants he may get the Laptop checked from some Lab./expert and submit the report on or before the date fixed.”

The Complainant thereafter, placed on record an Expert Report dated 04.11.2011, from Daksh Technologies, SCO No. 58, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh, which reads as under:-

“This is to certify that we rec. HP DV-6 1161TX S/N: CNF9274WWB Laptop from Ms. Neena Paul with the problem of overheating. We tested the Laptop it got overheated after approx. 40 minutes. We found that the heat sink of the above mentioned laptop is faulty due to which laptop got overheated. Before we replace the heat sink for solution the above mentioned Laptop not started again (No display).”

              On 03.01.2012, Opposite Party No.1 had filed objections to the aforesaid report filed by the Complainant, by submitting that the report had not been placed on record at the time of filing of the complaint. Also the report did not enumerate the qualifications or the expertise of the person giving the said advise. Submitting that the Complainant had failed to substantiate her allegations, Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

8.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

              It is pertinent to add here that on the concluding day, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the present complaint was proceeded to be disposed off on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection rules, 1987 read with Section 13[2] of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

9.           It is evident from the documents placed on record, as well as the allegations in the Complaint that the Laptop had been suffering from manufacturing defect from December 2009, the Complainant had taken it to the Opposite Party No. 3 three times i.e. February, March and April for rectification of the defect, but her complaint has not been redressed. As per the version of the Complainant, the Service Center had now refused to accept the said Laptop. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in reply have submitted that they are only Service Providers and they have no major role to play. Opposite Party No.1 has contested the contentions of the Complainant, stating that this is no proven manufacturing defect in the Laptop in question and the Complainant is unnecessarily making out an issue when the warranty of the Laptop has already expired.

10.         In the case Indochem Electronic and Another Versus Additional Collector of Customs, A.P, reported as (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it was the duty of the Supplier to continue to attend the fault in the system during the period of warranty, otherwise it would be a case of deficiency in service.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court further, held that “for all intent and purport, the period of warranty, thus, stood extended. As the defects in the system including manufacturing defects, if any, were found not only during the period of warranty but also during the extended period, and as the Appellant itself undertook to attend to the Complainants received in that behalf, it is too late for it now to contend that in view of the fact that the period of contract or warranty expired, it had no liability therefor”. Further, in Para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:-

“18. Section 14 of the Act provides for powers of the Forum to issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the things specified therein including:

14(1)(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;

(c) to return to the Complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the Complainant;”

11.         The defects in the Laptop have been recurring from time to time and the Complainant has not been able to enjoy its use even in the period of warranty. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly pointed out to the fact that in case a defect continues during the period of warranty and beyond, the Complainant would have a right under Section 14 of the Act for redressal of his/her grievance.

12.         Considering the entire material placed on record, and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cited above, we allow this complaint, with a direction to the OPs to refund the invoice price of Rs.51,500/- of the Laptop to the Complainant. The OPs will also pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation.

13.         The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 

14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04^th January, 2012.                                                       

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER