Haryana

Karnal

CC/180/2018

Paritosh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ved Kaith

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 180 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 24.07.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 19.06.2019

 

Paritosh Sharma, aged 26 years, son of Shri Yogendra Sharma, resident of House no.44, Chaudhary House Colony, Behind Khalsa College, Railway road, Karnal.

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1.HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore: 560 030 (Karnataka).

2. The Horizon Shopee, Head office, SCO 103, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal.

Branch  Office:

3. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot no.581, Ground Floor, Sector-9, Gurgaon: 122 001 (Haryana).                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                

 

 Present:  Shri Ved Kaith Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Akshat Sharma Advocate for OPs no.1 & 3.

                   Shri Vishal Kundi Advocate for OP no.2.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:  

                 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the OPs are doing the business of sale and purchase of Laptop under the name and style of HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. The OP no.2 is the authorized dealer of OP no.1 and its branch office of Gurgaon i.e. OP no.3. The complainant had purchased one Laptop marka HP 15-AU111RX (sr. no.5CD6322Y3N including Notebook PC Backpack Executive HP, 3. cleaning kit, 4. Keyboard Protector, 5. Mouse USB (AA), Batch  1 vide its invoice no.752 dated 11.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.55,000/- with a guarantee/warrantee period of one year. After purchasing the said laptop the complainant was using the same for his personal use and necessity. On 8.5.2018 the said laptop did not work properly. There is a manufacturing defect in the said laptop. Then complainant contacted the OP no.2 on 8.5.2018 for the repair of the said laptop, then the official of the OP no.2 asked the complainant to leave the said laptop for his repair and then the OP no.2 issued the job-sheet/service call report dated 8.5.2018 and requested to the complainant to come after one week for collection the said laptop. Despite several visits and requests by the complainant as well as his relative, on 15.05.2018 the OP no.2 told the complainant that the aforesaid laptop is not repairable, as there is technical defect in the said laptop. Then the OP no.2 returned the said laptop to the complainant. Since then the said laptop is lying idle. The OP told the complainant the said laptop is not serviceable. The complainant requested the OPs to change the said laptop with new one, but OPs flatly refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 18.06.2018 upon the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the laptop purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop, after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. It is further stated that the warranty benefits provided by the OPs no.1 and 3 on the said laptop are for a period of one year from the date of purchase, as on date the laptop is out of warranty period. That, on verification of the data maintained by the OP company based on the serial number of the laptop for the calls/complaints lodged to the Customer Care Centre/authorized of the OP, it is found that the complainant had reported Display flickering issue vide case ID 5011341434, as and when the complainant had reported the issue, the service team of the OP had attended to the reported issue promptly, extended to the complainant as per warranty obligations.

3.             It is further stated that any product of the OPs do not conform to the customer’s order upon initial inspection, or fails, the unit is entitled to new unit replacement under Dead on Arrival (DOA) policy. Accordingly, in the present case, since there was a display flickering issue and the same was un-resolvable, the complainant was offered/provided with DOA letter/replacement as per the norms of OPs instructing the complainant to consult OP no.2 for further replacement process. It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect with the unit model and it is working as per the specification. On 8.5.2018 the complainant reported display flickering issue to the OP no.2, on receipt of the complaint, the OP no.2 has suggested the complainant to leave the laptop for repair, further OP no.2 lodged complaint with the OPs no.1 and 2, against which a service engineer was deputed, who visited the complainant premises, diagnosed the laptop and found that the laptop in question eligible for replacement under DOA (Dead on Arrival), accordingly, as per warranty obligations had declared the laptop in question as DOA, sealed the unit, issued DOA certificate/letter dated 14.05.2018 for replacement and intimated the complainant to approach OP no.2 for replacement. However, OP no.2/commercial seller did not cooperate on communicating with seller flipkart for replacement regarding DOA replacement, complainant could not receive the DOA replacement on time. The OPs no.1 and 2 has attended the complaint of the complainant as and when reported as per the warranty obligations. Hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs no.1 and 3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; locus standi; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the laptop in question was under one year warranty from 11.3.2017 till 10.03.2018. The complainant has himself admitted that he noticed the fault in laptop on 8.5.2018. Even the DOA declaration dated 14.05.2018 issued by the OP no.1 wrongly mentions the laptop as “brand new one.” Thus, the complainant has concealed the true information from the OP no.1 and wrongly got issued the DOA letter. The complainant has wrongly alleged the involvement of the OP no.2 in the case. The complainant never visited the OP no.2 and went directly to the OP no.1 to avail his services. It is further pleaded that the laptop was having warranty of one year and once it was out of warranty the OP has no liability whatsoever to oblige the complainant in any way. Needless to say that a laptop is sensitive electronic equipment and it was the duty of the complainant to take proper care of it. It is further pleaded that the warranty status of the laptop is clearly shown as expired on the HP India website.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 22.03.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Girish Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 30.4.2019.

7.             OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kapil Rajpal Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/A to Ex.OP2/C and closed the evidence on 10.6.2019.

8.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

9.             The case of the complainant is that on 11.3.2017 he purchased one Laptop for a sum of Rs.55,000/- with a guarantee/warrantee period of one year. After purchasing the said laptop the complainant was using the same for his personal use and necessity. On 8.5.2018 the said laptop did not work properly. There is a manufacturing defect in the said laptop. Then complainant contacted the OP no.2 on 8.5.2018 for the repair of the said laptop, the official of the OP no.2 asked the complainant to leave the said laptop for his repair and  the OP no.2 issued the job-sheet/service call report dated 8.5.2018 and requested to the complainant to come after one week. After several visits and requests by the complainant on 15.05.2018 the OP no.2 told the complainant that the aforesaid laptop is not repairable, as there is technical defect in the said laptop. Then the OP no.2 returned the said laptop to the complainant. Since then the said laptop is lying dead. The OP told the complainant the said laptop is not serviceable. The complainant requested the OPs to change the said laptop with new one, but OPs flatly refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant.

10.            The case of the OPs no.1 and 3 is that that there is no manufacturing defect in the unit and it is working as per the specification. On 8.5.2018 the complainant reported display flickering issue to the OP no.2, on receipt of the complaint, the OP no.2 has suggested the complainant to leave the laptop for repair, further OP no.2 lodged complaint with the OPs no.1 and 2, against which a service engineer was deputed, who visited the complainant premises, diagnosed the laptop and found that the laptop in question eligible for replacement under DOA (Dead on Arrival), accordingly, as per warranty obligations had declared the laptop in question as DOA, sealed the unit, issued DOA certificate/letter dated 14.05.2018 for replacement and intimated the complainant to approach OP no.2 for replacement. However, OP no.2/commercial seller did not cooperate on communicating with seller flipkart for replacement regarding DOA replacement, complainant could not receive the DOA replacement on time. The OPs no.1 and 2 has attended the complaint of the complainant as and when reported as per the warranty obligations.

11.            The case of the OP no.3 is that the laptop in question was under one year warranty from 11.3.2017 till 10.03.2018. The complainant has himself admitted that he noticed the fault in laptop on 8.5.2018. Even the DOA declaration dated 14.05.2018 issued by the OP no.1 wrongly mentions the laptop as “brand new one.” Thus, the complainant has concealed the true information from the OP no.1 and wrongly got issued the DOA letter. The complainant has wrongly alleged the involvement of the OP no.2 in the case. The complainant never visited the OP no.2 and went directly to the OP no.1 to avail his services. It is further pleaded that the laptop was having warranty of one year and once it was out of warranty the OP has no liability whatsoever to oblige the complainant in any way.

12.            Admittedly, the laptop in question was purchased by the complainant from the OP no.2 on 11.03.2017. On 8.5.2018 the said laptop did not work properly. There was defect in the said laptop. Then complainant contacted the OP no.2 on 8.5.2018 for the repair of the said laptop but the OPs did not repair the laptop due to out of warranty.  It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the abovesaid laptop on 11.03.2017 with the warranty/guaranty of one year. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that firstly he complained the OPs regarding defect in the laptop on 8.5.2018. Hence the warranty/guaranty of the laptop has expired on 10.03.2018. The laptop in question was reported to be defected firstly on 8.5.2018 which is out of warranty period. Secondly, the complainant alleged in his complaint that the laptop was having manufacturing defect but complainant has not mentioned what manufacturing defect occurred in the laptop. In support of his version complainant has not placed on file any document to believe that the laptop was having manufacturing defect. Hence complainant totally failed to prove his case by cogent and believable evidence. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.06.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                (Vineet Kaushik)                    Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                      Member