Complainant Sunit Gupta has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace the laptop or to return the amount of Rs.31,500/-. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain and physical harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a laptop of HP Company having model no.HP250G3 bearing serial no.CND428GTK5 from Shiv Enterprises on 14.12.2015 with one year warranty including accidental damage protection. It is alleged by complainant that laptop has not been working from the very beginning. It stopped working on 26.1.2016 due to display problem, on 12.3.2016 due to hard disc problem and again on 05.04.2016 due to graphic problem. Every time it has been repaired from opposite party no.3 the authorized service centre of opposite party no.1 & 2. He has attached all service call reports also. It is further pleaded that on 24.7.2016 again he has to suffer due to non working of USB and performance issue in the laptop. He has handed over laptop to opposite party no.3 and refused to get it repair because he has already suffered a lot due to non performance and persistent problem into laptop. Ultimately settlement arrived at by offering him the extension of 60 days full warranty period. A confirmation mail was received from case manager on 11.08.2016 for extension of warranty period. It was checked on the site at HP Support Centre, which shows that warranty period extended upto 11.2.2017 and it was downloaded by him. On 07.02.2017 the laptop of the complainant fell down and got damaged. The complainant reported his case to the customer care on the same day and handover his laptop to the opposite party no.3 for the repair as his laptop was still under accidental damage protection warranty. The opposite party no.3 after checking the accidental damage protection status of the complainant’s laptop collected the laptop for the repair under case no.4782330153 on 9.2.2017. On 21.2.2017 the complainant was surprised to know from the email sent by the company that they are unable to replace the spare parts as the unit is not meeting the ADP criteria. On his persistent effort the customer care executive gave him a new case number i.e. 4782846541 via email dated 22.02.2017. And on the same day the company asked the complainant to share the pdf of the warranty of the laptop, so the complainant shared the pdf with the company and the company replied on 23.02.2017 via email that in their site the ADP coverage is not shown but it is different from the pdf shared by the complainant and it can happen due to technical glitch and the company refused to repair the laptop. Thus, it is clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the opposite party not only refused to repair the laptop of the complainant which is under Accidental Damage Protection warranty period but also cleverly changed the status of the warranty in their site. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties no.1 & 2 who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission by suppressing the material facts. It would be observed that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with malafide intent; the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any technical/manufacturing defect proved in the laptop. The question nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice being established against the opposite party. It was next submitted that on 9.2.2017 vide case No.4782330153 had reported that on 07.02.2017 the laptop was damaged, as it slipped and fell down on the stairs, hence had logged complaint under accidental damage however accidental warranty was applicable only for 12 months of base warranty and same was not covered under extended warranty. In the case in hand, the subject laptop was provided with Hardware onsite warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase, as on date, the laptop is out of the warranty period. That the complainant had reported issues in the laptop to the customer care center of the opposite party during different time intervals and different case id numbers, which was immediately attended and resolved by carrying out necessary repair and replacing the required parts as per the terms of the warranty, further treating the complainant’s case as a exceptional one as a gesture of goodwill, the opposite party had extended the warranty for a further period of 60 days, that it was made clear to the complainant that extended warranty covers only functional failure and accidental coverage (ADP) is not applicable in extended warranty and the same was not updated in the warranty status. It was next submitted that this Hon'ble Commission, while considering the prayers as sought for by the complainant in the present complaint, ought to keep in mind the well established principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract. The Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction under Section 11 of the consumer Protection Act to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint. On merits also, the same pleadings have been repeated and dismissal of the complaint again prayed with costs.
4. Notice issued to opposite party no.3 had not been received back. Period of 30 days had already been elapsed. Presumption could be drawn that opposite party no.3 had been served but it was intentionally evading the service of the notice. Case called several times, but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. Hence, opposite party no.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order 28.6.2017.
5. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.
6. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rehamatulla S.K. Authorised Signatory Ex.OP-1,2/1
7. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. Present complaint is filed by the complainant against opposite parties for non-replacement/repair of his damaged laptop stating that it is not covered under accidental damage protection (ADP). As per retail invoice dated 14.12.2015 placed at Ex.C-1, complainant purchased a laptop of the make which belong to opposite party no.1 & 2 by paying Rs.31,500/- from Shiv Enterprises. It is pleaded by the complainant that on 7.2.2017, the laptop fell down and got damaged and thereafter it was handed over to opposite party no.3 for repair on 9.2.2017 being an authorized service centre of opposite party no.1 & 2.
10. It is further alleged that opposite party no.1 and 2 conveyed through e-mail that the item cannot be repaired as it is not covered under ADP warranty. It was also mentioned in the complaint that this laptop had developed certain problems earlier at different times also which have been got attended by opposite party no.3, evidence placed at Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9. As the defects were occurring time and again, the complainant refused to get it repaired and demanded replacement, so opposite party no.1 & 2 as a goodwill gesture extended the warranty of the product for further 60 days i.e. upto 11.2.2017 (copy placed at Ex.C-7).
11. Opposite party no.1 & 2 in their written reply denied all the allegations of the complainant and stated that it’s a reputed company and they take care of their customers as well that's why earlier all the problem of the customer got resolved there and then and warranty has also extended in this case for further 60 days as a goodwill gesture. But it is categorically mentioned that extended warranty covers only functional failure and not the accidental damage. But opposite party has not placed on record any cogent evidence in proof of their statement regarding non-coverage of ADP.
12. On the other hand, complainant has placed the copy of extended warranty at Ex.C-7 which shows that accidental damage is also covered and it is valid upto 11.2.2017 i.e. beyond the date of damage of item. Moreover opposite party no.3 accepted this damaged laptop for repair which also endorse to the coverage of ADP.
13. From the above facts of the case, we are of the opinion that opposite party has failed to prove non coverage of ADP in extended warranty, hence complaint deserve the repair of said item or refund of the amount.
14. The present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party no.1 & 2 are hereby directed to refund the amount Rs.31,500/- to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. Further opposite party no.1 & 2 is directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- for compensation for harassment and litigation expenses, failing which opposite party no.1 & 2 is directed to pay the whole amount with 6% interest P.A. from date of filing of the case.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
September 21, 2022 Member
*MK*
