Delhi

North

RBT/CC/133/2022

DR RICHIE GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP INC. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT Consumer Complaint No.: 133/2022

                                       IN THE MATTER OF

Dr. Richie Gupta

S/o Dr. V.S. Gupta,

A 1/11 Jiwan Jyoti Apartments,

Pitampura, Delhi-110034.                             …                          Complainant

 

HP Inc.

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

Crown Plaza Surya,

E-F,P.C.,

New Delhi-110065,

 

Also at:

HP Inc.

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd

24, Salarpuria  GR Tech Park,

Akash Block, Khatha No.69/3,

Whitefield Road,

Bangalore-560030.                   

Karnataka.                                                   …                          Opposite Party

 

ORDER

26/03/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The Complainant had filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before Hon’ble DCDRC-V Shalimar Bagh where it was assigned the Consumer Complaint No.595/2018. It was further transferred to this Commission by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn/Transfer/2022/330 dated 16.04.2022 and accordingly, this complaint was registered as RBT/CC No.133/2022. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

 

1. The Complainant had purchased a "Notebook" PC Pavillion 14-Cd055Tx bearing serial number 8CG820198Y through HP's online store from his home address on June 25, 2018 on payment of Rs.88,585/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Five only) after receiving promotional discount of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousand Rupees Only). The cost was inclusive of extended warranty, antivirus, Microsoft office and Bluetooth speaker. The copy of invoice number CHNRI1819121263 has been filed at page 8-11 of complaint.
2. The Complainant after using the laptop realized that it is not matching up to the specification provided by HP Inc. on its online store, precisely the false advertisement of "liberating battery life" promising 11 hour of battery life stating "With up to 11 hours of battery life, take on your day without worrying about recharging" along with running advertisement of use of the said product while travelling to work whereas the said product battery’s life was of merely 2-3 hours even while using light applications like Microsoft Word or reading medical journals. The Complainant has enclosed copy of advertisement with the complaint at pages 15 & 19.
3. On lodging complaint with Opposite Party on July 13, 2018, an engineer was sent who eventually evaluated that the battery performance which lasted only 2.5 to 3 hours. On receiving a non-satisfactory report from the Complainant, the OP sent a second engineer who stated that the battery cycle lasted for 3.5 hours only. Service Call Reports are enclosed with complaint at page number 31 & 33. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote series of e-mails to the OP for resolving the issue by providing the battery as per specification explained in the advertisement or refund the amount. The OP instead to resolve the issue, found ways like asking for laptop to be submitted for evaluation even after two visits by their engineers. The OP neither restored the battery nor provided refund for the product. Copy of e-mails are enclosed with complaint at Pages 34 to 44.
4.  The opposite party sought for the laptop for thorough check up at its service centre without providing any assurance of promised battery life, to which the Complainant respectfully declined due to numerous important factors being loss of 800 GB worth private and confidential data of Complainant's patient and understanding of the fact after two failed visits from opposite party's engineers. Copy of email is at page no 41 of the complaint.
5. The Complainant conveyed to the representatives of the opposite party that his concern is related to battery life and not warranty, however, the representatives were keen to close the matter and had sent an email stating the same. Copy of emails are filed with the complaint.
6.  The opposite party stated that the Complainant was not willing to submit the laptop to the service centre. The Complainant is a Professional doctor having data and important things in the laptop. It was not possible for the Complainant, to put all the data of the client at stake.  Email to OP in this regard has been filed at Page No. 43 of the complaint. The Complainant was, therefore, compelled to issue a legal notice dated 02.08.2018 seeking refund of the laptop amount. The notice was duly delivered on 06.08.2019 but the OP chose not to reply to the notice and did not even act.

 

2.       Therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint for violation of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  for misleading advertisement etc. alleging that:-    

i.       the technicians of the opposite party admitted to the fact that battery life was of 2-3 hours and advertisement is in fact only a standby time, thereby the opposite party with malafide intentions issued such false and misleading advertisement.

ii.      the opposite party duped the Complainant by way of its false and misleading advertisement with a tag line 'liberating battery life' which is supplemented by "With up to 11 hours of battery life, take on your day without worrying about recharging". However, the said battery never lasted beyond 2-3 hours.

iii.     The very purpose of purchasing the laptop is defeated the moment when the unit did not function well. It also leads to wastage of precious time of the Complainant despite causing him physical harassment and mental agony.

iv.      The Complainant has referred to the judgment M.R. Ramesh vs M/S. Prakash Moped House & Ors. and Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Pankaj Kumar, where the Hon’ble National Commission has reiterated the need for truth in advertisements.

3.       The Complainant has alleged that the opposite parties are deficient in giving proper service to the Complainant and finding a solution to the problem. Therefore, it has been prayed that opposite party be directed to refund amount of Rs.88,585/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Five only) with 18% interest from date of payment till realization. Besides, the OP be directed to pay Rs 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by Complainant.

 

4.       The notice was issued to the OP to defend the complaint and the OP has filed reply stating that the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable in law and all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint are denied except those that are specifically admitted in the reply. There is no substance in the complaint and averments made in the complaint are totally baseless and is liable to be rejected at the outset. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in the above matter. The engineers of the Opposite Party had attended the grievance of the complainant, without any delay and diagnosed the issue.

 

5.       The OP has contended that the battery is a consumable part and battery backup always depends upon the usage of the product. Since the laptop is under warranty, the obligation of the Opposite Party is only to repair the computer and not to replace the same. The engineers of Opposite Party has repaired the laptop and replaced the parts, as and when a complaint was registered by the complainant. The Opposite Party was always ready and willing to repair the system if there is any complaint in the system but the Complainant did not allow the engineer to inspect the product by demanding replacement of the product. The laptop is a sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same are depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the software installed on the system. Any mishandling of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system. Therefore, if any component is defective, either changing the same or repairing the same would solve the entire issue with the computer. The whole purpose of taking the warranty by consumer is because the electronic system is always vulnerable to failure due to some or any of the defects in the components.

6.       The OP has further stated that:-

i.       the intention of the complainant is nothing but an experiment to obtain a new system by misrepresenting this Commission.

ii.      The Opposite Party do not share any misleading information with their customers and the specification of the products are being checked before its launching.

iii.     There is no manufacturing defect for the laptop purchased by the complainant. The complainant purchased the laptop on 25.06.2018 and the first complaint was reported to the Opposite Party on 04.07.2018. The laptop would have been stopped working on the day of purchase itself in case of any manufacturing defect.

iv.      The averment of the Complainant in para 3 of the complaint that the product is not matching up to the specification provided, has been denied by the OP stating that the specification of all the products of this Opposite Party gets tested before launching of the products. As per HP website, it is mentioned that the battery back is up to 11 hrs, however, battery backup of each products depends upon its usage.

v.       The averment contained in Para No. 4 of the complaint that the product is not providing what was promised has also been denied.

vi.      In reply to the averments contained in Para No. 5 of the complaint, it is stated that an engineer of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant and diagnosed the unit. There was pending activity which was needed to get done to find out the root causes of the issue. The OP do not share any misleading information with its customers and the specification of the products gets checked thoroughly before the launching of the said product. The engineer of the Opposite Party visited the complainant twice and checked the battery backup. The engineer also shared required details with senior technical team and accordingly senior technical team suggest next point of actions.

vii.     On a mere perusal of the averments in Para No. 7 of the complaint, would show that the complainant was negligent in not depositing the laptop with the service centre for further check up. The engineers of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant and checked the unit. Since the product needs to get diagnosed at service centre for extensive troubleshooting and testing purpose, the Opposite Party requested the complainant to deposit the product with the service centre but the complainant denied to provide the laptop for further diagnosis for the reasons best known to him and demanded replacement of the product.

viii.    As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, if the product is covered under warranty period, the Opposite Party is bound to carry out necessary repairs free of cost and the same was informed to the complainant. The Opposite Party was forced to close the complaint on account of non co-operation on the part of the complainant.

ix.      The averment contained in Para No. 9 of the complaint that the Opposite Party is now running away from its liability to pay or replace the product with promised specifications and has miserably failed to pay for the fraud committed upon the complainant, is denied stating that this Opposite Party was always ready and willing to repair the product but the complainant was not ready to deposit the product with the service centre for further check up.

x.       There is no cause of action for the complaint since the complainant deliberately declined to deposit the laptop with the service centre for further diagnosis as requested by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is always ready and willing to      support the complainant as per warranty obligation. The prayers made in the complaint are frivolous and the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed in the complaint.

xi.      In an electronic product, particularly in a laptop, there are many severable parts which are independent functioning as such the defects if any problem finds in adaptor, or DVD Drive, Front Panel or Motherboard, it cannot be a basis for replacement demand for a new laptop.

xii.     The Opposite Party is a reputed manufacturer of computers and technical requirements and only after proper quality control and testing; the products are rolled out for sale in the open market and the scope for defective units are very rare. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and there is no manufacturing defect to the laptop,

 

7.       The Complainant has filed the rejoinder to the reply of the OP refuting the contentions of the OP and affirming the allegations levelled in the complaint. Both the parties have filed evidence by way of Affidavit, written arguments and have participated in the proceedings of oral arguments before the Commission. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences & material available on records and it has been observed that:-

I.        The Complainant ,who is a doctor by profession, had purchased the laptop/ Notebook on 25.06.2018 for keeping the records of his patients lured by the features and specifications disclosed in the advertisement and after using it, noticed that the battery life is very less in comparison to the claims of 11 hours disclosed in the advertisement. Therefore, after 18 days of purchase complaint was raised with the OP which is not in dispute and supported with the service call records.

II.       The OP has closed the complaint raised by the complainant, on the ground that the Complainant has failed to deposit the laptop with their Centre. The Complainant has given the reasons for not depositing the laptop as “numerous important factors being loss of 800 GB worth private and confidential data of Complainant's patient...”

III.      In the reply, the OP has also admitted that the various factors affect the performance of the laptop or battery etc. and the Complainant would not have been using the laptop carefully. The contention of the OP does not sound convincing as the Complainant is a doctor by profession who is well educated and understand how to use the laptop. Moreover, none of the technician who happens to visit the Complainant premises to attend the complaint, has never communicated to the Complainant about the mishandling or misuse of the device on his part. Further, no such apprehension has been communicated to the complainant even in the emails exchanged between both the parties. The defense taken by the OP does not sound convincing.   

IV.      The OP has referred the warranty Clause stating that “ if the product is covered under warranty period, the Opposite Party is bound to carry out necessary repairs free of cost and the same was informed to the complainant” but the OP cannot cover its deficiency under the of warranty clause. Had he been considerate about the grievance of the consumer, he would have replaced the batter atleast up to the satisfaction of the consumer. This would have  proved the goodwill gesture of the OP towards its customer as he has now claimed in his reply. Instead the OP has not made any serious effort to redress the grievance of the consumer and sent the technician in routine manner.

V.       From the reply of the OP, it is clear that the battery does not perform up to 11 hours as claimed in the advertisement wherein it has not been made clear that the batter back up is upto 11 hours to educate the prospective buyers/consumers.                   

8.       In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficiency in service on the part of OP, in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s HP Inc. /Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd) to refund 50% amount of the cost of the laptop i.e. Rs. 44,293/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Three Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 07-09-2018 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony and harassment.

9.       It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period. The complainant shall return the defective laptop to the OP after receipt of the amount as ordered in para 8 above.

10.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                         ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                        HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                        Member                                                                                   Member                       

                                  DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                DCDRC-1 (North)

 

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President 

DCDRC-1 (North)