BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 09 day of February 2022

Filed on: 25.09.2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri.V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member

CC.No.267/2020

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER

P.P.Abdul Kareem, S/O.P.P.Nabeesu, Poovamulleparambil, Meruvambayi, Neerveli P.O., Mangattidam, Kannur – 670 701.

Presently residing at Kallungal House, 1^st Floor, Karukappilly Lane, Elamakkara Road, Elamakkara P.O., Ernakulam – 682 026

(Rep. by Adv Ratheesh P.R., Jurisslaw-Coporate Consultants & Attorneys, First Floor, “Jyothis”, Prasanthinagar Road 4B, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. M/S. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, 24, Salarpuria Arena,
   Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore 560 030.

2. Sysmantec, HP World, E24, 3^rd Floor, Oberon Mall, Edappally,
   Kochi – 682 024.

O R D E R

D.B.Binu, President

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant is a practicing lawyer before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam and he states that he has purchased an HP all in one desktop having model number HP22-C0005IN (Serial No. 8CC9175 MWN) from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of HP hardware, software and other computing applications. The said all in one desktop (hereinafter referred to as the desktop) was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The sales officers of the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant with good service quality including high standard and three years full cover warranty, so that it will have longer durability compared to other brands. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the desktop by paying an amount of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) to the 2^nd opposite party on 12.09.2019.

After the purchase of the desktop, the complainant alleges that he has noticed certain defects with the desktop as follows;

1. On or about April 2020, a crack like mark was noticed on the left upper corner of the desktop while switching on

2. Consequent to the above, the display became deep dark in color, without sound or picture.

The complainant reported these defects to the toll-free number of the 1^st opposite party namely 18004254999 and contacted the 2^nd opposite party in their mobile No. 9947386608 notifying the above defects. Both the opposite parties informed that they would address the complainant’s grievances at the earliest. Even though the complainant repeatedly sent reminders, via WhatsApp and email to both the opposite parties, they did not turn up to attend the complaint. None of the messages were attended or replied by the opposite parties. Meanwhile, the complainant directly went to the 2^nd opposite party’s shop and discussed the issue faced by him and even complained about their dereliction and deficiency in their services for which the 2^nd opposite party apologized to the complainant for the omission from their part and assured that they would send a technician to check the desktop and would either cure the defect or would replace the defective product. Thereafter the complaint waited for next 3 more months to get the complaint addressed to. Thereafter on 19 07. 2020 the complainant served a legal notice to the 1^st opposite party through email ID email-in.contact@hp.com and hard copies were served to both the opposite parties through speed post, which have been produced with the complaint as Annexure A2. Both the opposite parties received the notice, but did not reply to the same. Delivery confirmed receipts are produced along with the complaint as Annexure A3. The complainant states that, he is a practicing lawyer and has purchased the desktop for use for his official purpose. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have given an assurance through warranty for curing/replacement on any defects, but they have not adhered to the statutory obligation to replace or cure the defects upon repeated requests and sending legal notices. The complainant has approached this commission, since 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have violated the terms of warranty and have not taken any steps to replace or repair the desktop, even after repeated communications from the complainant. The complainant has further prayed for directing opposite parties to replace or refund the cost of the desktop in question and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2) Notice

Upon notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to appear before this Commission despite service through registered post and thus, opposite No. 1 & 02 were set ex-parte.

3) Evidence

The complainant produced three documents which were marked as Exbt.A1, A2 and A3. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant. Being ex-parte there was no evidence from the side of opposite party and hence the merit of the case is decided fully on the basis of the submissions of the complainant, facts and evidence made available before the Commission.

In support of his case, the complaint has tendered into evidence his complaint an Invoice No. SOB18991920 dated 12.09.2019, raised against the above purchase by the 2^nd opposite party along with the certificate of warranty, issued to the complainant, which is produced as Annexure A1, Legal Notice dated 19.07.2020 sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party through email ID email-in.contact@hp.com and hard copies served to both the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through speed post, has been produced with the complaint as Annexure A2. Legal notice delivery confirmation receipts by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are produced as Annexure A3.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case to reach an inference as to whether the complainant had sustained deficiency of service from the side of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are as follows: -

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice sustained to the complainant from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant to get replacement or refund of money for the desktop in question?

3. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties?

4. Cost of the proceedings?

4) Point No. (i) & (ii)

The only grievance of the complainant is that the desktop purchased by him for Rs.33,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party and manufactured by 1^st opposite party became defective in April 2020, after sometime from its purchase as it developed a crack like mark which was noticed on the left upper corner of the desktop while switching on and also the display became deep dark in color, without sound or picture. After noticing the above defects, an online complaint was lodged initially and the complainant has personally visited the office of the 2^nd opposite party and has also sent a legal notice to both the opposite parties 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that during the currency of warranty period, the desktop in question purchased by the complainant has become defective which has neither been repaired nor replaced by the opposite parties which constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has alleged that the desktop in question is still not working properly and require its repair or replacement. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and also on going through the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that as the desktop is a unit of assembled parts and every part can be changed easily, the opposite parties can refund the entire purchase amount of 33000/-.

5) Point No. (iii) & (iv)

The Complainant has purchased the desktop in question for his official purpose and might have suffered some mental agony, since he was not able to utilize the same for doing his office work. The complainant has further requested time and again through online platform and through proper channel by issuing a legal notice to cure the defects of the desktop in question, but the same was ignored by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties thus amounting to mental harassment to the complainant. So we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

Resultantly, since point Nos. (i) & (ii) are proved in favour of the complainant and Point Nos. iii & iv are assessed and evaluated as follows: -

1. We direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant which is the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party being the cost of the desktop in question purchased by the complainant, along with 9% interest from 12.09.2019 till the date of payment.

2. We direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed towards the complainant by the opposite parties.

3. An amount of Rs.5,000/- is to be paid as cost of proceedings to the complainant by the opposite parties.

4. The liability of the opposite parties should be joint and several.

The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Commission on this the 9^th day of February 2022.

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Exbts :

Exbt.A1 :: copy of invoice issued by SYSMANTECH HP World dated 12.09.2019 in favour of the complainant.

Exbt.A2 :: copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 19.07.2020

Exbt.A3 :: Photocopies of the status reports as ‘delivery confirmed’ from the postal online portal

Opposite party’s Exbts. : Nil

Date of despatch :

By Hand ::

By post

CC.No.267/2020

Order dated 09.02.2022