Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/71/2017

Naveen Venkataraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP PPS Service Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesh

11 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                      Date of Filing  : 07.02.2017

                                                                   Date of Order : 11.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

             

C.C. NO.71/2017

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

Naveen Venkataraman,

S/o. Mr. S. Venkataraman,

New No.36, Jubilee Road,

West Mambalam, Opp. SRS Hall,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                      .. Complainant

..Versus..

 

1. HP PPS Service India Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Case Manager,

Salarpuria GR Tech Park, Akash Block,

Khatha No.69/3, Whitefield Road,

Bangalore – 560 066,

Karnataka.

 

2. Soundry Computer Systems,

Rep. by its Showroom Manager,

Forum Vijaya Mall, Unit No.SF 206B,

No.183, NSK Salai,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.                                                  .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant  :  Mr. K. Ganesh

 

 Opposite parties                     :  Exparte     

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to replace the product by higher version billing the complainant for the difference in price with the usual discount as provided for the subject matter of the complaint namely (present computer), in the alternative pay back the price of Rs.38,500/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase till now that is Rs.6,930/- totalling into Rs.45,430/- and further future interest at 18% p.a. after disposal till realization and to pay of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for sufferings in business, mental agony and stress with cost to the complainant.

1.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a computer product Model N4Q11AA (HP PAVILION ALL IN ONE 20 EO10IN PC) Serial No.8CC54105X3 from the 2^nd opposite party by order dated:22.02.2016 for Rs.38,500/- and delivered on 23.02.2016.  The said computer products have one year warranty and 2 years warranty for APC 600.   The said computer was purchased for the Senior Advocate S. Venkataraman with a fond hope that the system will work as fast in order to meet the urgency relating to the court purpose.   But the computer was very slow to log on as well as to proceed further for typing; used to jump and jiggle.  The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party confirmed the said problem through e-mail dated:20.12.2016.   The 1^st opposite party also confirmed the complaint and issued service order 4005757320 assigned to the nearest HP Authorised service Centre for proper service.   On 24.12.2016, one Mr. Ashok, Engineer from Ensure Support Service India Private Limited who is the Authorised Service Centre examined the system and recorded that system is slow and log in needed OS to install.  But the complainant refused for service and installation of spare parts and the complainant is claiming to replace the entire set with higher version of i3 or i5.   The complainant submits that as per the report, there is a fault in the software system. 

2.     The complainant submits that on 26.12.2016, the complainant’s father sent an email to the 1^st opposite party indicating that the 2^nd opposite party has not explained the real defects.   The 2^nd opposite party opined that the defect in the system cannot be rectified since there are manufacturing defect.   The complainant submits that on 24.12.2016, a technician visited and the full report was scanned and concluded that the unit can be replaced with higher gradation i3 on the agreement to pay different in price.  The complainant submits that the Manager, Anirban of the 1^st opposite party after acknowledging the complaint deputed Mr. Indra Kumar of Ensure Support Service who visited on 07.01.2017 submitted a report that the customer have data in hard disc and not willing to install the OS, system is very slow issue, system working fine but very slow and need upgradation of rank.  On 09.01.2017, the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party regarding the upgradation of rank and installing the OS are all trial and error method.    On 13.01.2017, the complainant sent reply mail indicating that the configuration of the system is only fixed with 2 GB RAM and to suggest upgradation of  rank.  The complainant states that the 1^st opposite party negatived replacement and expressed his sincere apology for any trouble and inconvenience caused and it was not his intention to disappoint the complainant in any way with their product / service and at the same time to understand HP’s position.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not chosen to appear before this Forum and therefore, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set Exparte.  

4.     Though the opposite parties 1 & 2 remained Exparte, this Forum is to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this Forum. 

5.     In such circumstances, in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also documents Ex.A1 to  Ex.A23  are marked.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the computer product by Higher Version with the usual discount as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant alternatively entitled to get back the price of the computer product of Rs.38,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of business and mental agony with cost as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 remained Exparte.    Perused the records namely the complaint, proof affidavit, documents and written arguments.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a computer product Model N4Q11AA (HP PAVILION ALL IN ONE 20 EO10IN PC) Serial No.8CC54105X3 from the 2^nd opposite party by order dated:22.02.2016 for Rs.38,500/- and delivered on 23.02.2016 as per Ex.A1, Sales Order.  The said computer product has one year warranty and 2 years warranty for APC 600 is also seen from Ex.A1.   The said computer was purchased for the Senior Advocate S. Venkataraman with a fond hope that the system will work as fast in order to meet the urgency relating to the court purpose.   But the computer was very slow to log on as well as to proceed further for typing; used to jump and jiggle.  The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party confirmed the said problem through e-mail dated:20.12.2016.   The 1^st opposite party also confirmed the complaint and issued service order 4005757320 assigned to the nearest HP Authorised service Centre for proper service.   On 24.12.2016, one Mr. Ashok, Engineer from Ensure Support Service India Private Limited who is the Authorised Service Centre examined the system and recorded that system is slow and log in needed OS to install.  But the complainant refused for service and installation of spare parts.  On the other hand, the complainant is claiming to replace the entire set with higher version of i3 or i5.   Further the contention of the complainant is that as per the report, there is a fault in the software system.   

8.     Further the complainant contended that on 26.12.2016, the complainant’s father sent an email to the 1^st opposite party indicating that the 2^nd opposite party has not explained the real defects.   The 2^nd opposite party opined that the defect in the system cannot be rectified since there are manufacturing defect.  But the complainant has not taken any steps for expert opinion.   Further the complainant contended that on 24.12.2016, a technician visited and the full report was scanned and concluded that the unit can be replaced with higher gradation i3 on the agreement to pay different in price.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the Manager, Mr. Anirban of the 1^st opposite party after acknowledging the complaint deputed Mr. Indra Kumar of Ensure Support Service who visited on 07.01.2017 as per Ex.A13 submitted a report that the customer have data in hard disc and not willing to install the OS, system is very slow issue, system working fine but very slow and need upgradation of rank.  The allegation of the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect, replacement of higher version of i3 etc have no connection with the manufacturing defect.  On 09.01.2017, the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party regarding the upgradation of rank and installing the OS are all trial and error method as per Ex.A14, email.  But admittedly, the complainant has not taken any step for expert opinion.  On 13.01.2017, the complainant sent reply mail indicating that the configuration of the system is only fixed with 2 GB RAM and to suggest upgradation of  rank as per Ex.A17, email.  But the complainant purchased the computer products with the specification in Ex.A1 not with version of i3 or i5.  The 1^st opposite party also negatived the request of the complainant regarding replacement. 

9.     The contention of the complainant is that the defective nature of the computer caused great inconvenience and loss and thereafter, filed this complaint claiming replacement and expressed his sincere apology for any trouble and inconvenience alternatively a higher version of i3 or alternatively the refund of the price of the computer with interest and compensation.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is apparently seen that the complainant purchased as per Ex.A1 the product which has no configuration of i3 processor.   The claiming of i3 or i5 RAM is beyond the scope of the complainant.   It is also seen from the records that the complainant has not taken any steps to obtain expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect.   The law is well settled that if a part of the instrument is on fault, the part alone shall be replaced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall rectify the defects in the computer purchased as per Ex.A1 within one month from the date of receipt of the order copy and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to rectify the defects in the computer purchased as per Ex.A1 within one month from the date of receipt of the order copy and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of Sales Order from the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of Service call report
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of email from the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of email from the 2ndopposite party
		Copy of email from the complainant to 2nd opposite party
		Copy of email from the 2nd opposite party to complainant
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of Service Call Report
		Copy of email from the complainant to 2nd opposite party
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of email from the complainant to 1st opposite party
		Copy of email from the 1st opposite party to complainant
		Copy of email from the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT