DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 295 of 27.7.2016

                                      Decided on:   16.11.2018

Gaganpreet Kaur aged about 24 years daughter of Sukhdev Singh resident of House No.666, Jhandu Ki Bagachi, Street No.1near Raghu Majra, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       HP PPs Service India Private Limited Salarpuria G R Tec Park, Akash Block, Khanha No.69/3, White Field Road Bangalore, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

2.       Zee Enterprises Opposite M.C.Town Hall near Gurudwara Singh Sabha Road, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala through its Prop. Surinder Oberoi.

3.       Sys net Global Technologies (Service Center) branch office of HP PPs Service India Private Limited, SCO 22,  II Floor, Opposite ICICI Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through Branch Manager, Sanjay Kumar.

4.       Sys net Global Technologies, Regional office of HP PPs Service India Private Limited, SCO 146-147, II Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Amit Kumar Chauhan , Regional Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member         

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.A.S.Ahluwalia,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    M.P.SINGH PAHWA, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint  filed by Gaganpreet Kaur ( hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against HP PPS Services India Private Limited and others ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that she purchased one new HP note book from OP No.2 vide bill No.488 dated 18.6.2016 for Rs.35,500/-. At the time of purchase the window was not installed in the Laptop. Lateron, on 19.6.2016 complainant installed window. She was shocked to see that the laptop was having display problem and excess light and dark circle on the bottom of the screen on left corner. It is alleged that OP no.2 intentionally sold defective laptop to the complainant having manufacturing defects. The complainant complained to OP No.2.The OP No.2 replied that being Sunday ( on 19.6.2016) nothing can be done and complainant was asked to call on 20.6.2016. On 20.6.2016, the complainant made call to OP No.2 who assured to solve the problem after consulting sale distributor. On 21.6.2016, when no satisfactory reply was received from OP No.2, the complainant lodged complaint on Customer Care Number mentioned on the Laptop (1800112267).Message was received from OP No.1 acknowledging complaint No.4774368583. On 21.6.2016,  executive from the HP service  i.e. OP No.3 came to her and took photograph and assured for the solution, He also convinced the complainant to replace the laptop. Thereafter on 21.6.2016, complainant visited the office of service centre of HP and met Mr.Sanjay i.e. OP No.3 who requested three days time to solve the problem. On 24.6.2016, complainant again contacted OPs No.3&4 for replacement of the laptop. OP sent e-mail to the complainant mentioning excuses of liquid damage. Thereafter the complainant again made call to Mr.Rajiv Gupta (HP Punjab Service provider) and disclosed the whole episode. He also did not pay any heed to her complaint. The complainant also replied to the e-mail on 28.6.2016 to OPs No.1&4. On 29.6.2016, complainant received reply from OP No.4 whereby OP No.4 has requested for copy of purchase invoice for replacement of the part. The complainant supplied copy of the purchase invoice and sent e-mail to OP No.1  also on the same day. OP No.1 also replied and demanded purchase invoice. Again complainant sent e-mail to OP No.4 on 30.6.2016. The reply was sent by OP No.4 with the same false excuse of liquid damage. Complainant again requested through e-mail to OPs No.1,3&4 for replacement but the OPs denied for replacement of the laptop. Complainant also asked for the refund of the money but to no response.
3. On this background of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is also pleaded that due to this deficiency she is suffering from mental agony and financial loss. For these sufferings, the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- in addition to the replacement of the laptop with new one or refund of its price and Rs.22000/- costs of litigation.
4. Upon notice, previously OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed reply but none appeared on behalf of OPs No.2to4 and they were proceeded against exparte.
5. In reply OP No.1 raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint.That Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1) is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956. It is having registered office at No.24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore. The products manufactured by it pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production. The products  manufactured and marketed by the OP are approved by the highest body to certify the IT products and go through a process of quality inspection  before the same is dispatched to the authorized channel partner for sale on a principal to principal basis. The OP No.1 is well supported by the excellent authorized channel partners and service centers having excellent setup for after sales servicing of the products.
6. Thereafter, the OP raised legal objections that the complaint is abuse of process of law. It is not maintainable. The averments made are wrong, baseless and with malafide intention. The complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop nor any deficiency in service being established against it; that OP no.2 from whom the complainant purchased laptop is not authorized dealer/authorized support service provider of the HP branded products ; there is no privity of contract between OP No.1 and OP No.2.Therefore, it is not liable for the assurance given by OP No.2 in its independent capacity. That the laptop in question is well established product in the market. Consumers are using the product and are satisfied with the performance. The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the  guidelines/ procedure given in the user manual as recommended for smoother and better performance of the laptop in question. As per terms and conditions of the warranty applicable, it is limited for a period of one year from the date of sale, subject to fulfillment of other terms and conditions. The working of the laptop depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system etc, any mishandling would hamper the proper working of the system. That the OP has been prompt  and swift to attend to the  alleged grievance reported by the complainant under the warranty  as and when reported. All the problems as and when reported by the complainant were duly attended . However, on inspection it is found that the issue reported was due to physical damage caused to the unit. As such the same was not resolved being not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. That this Forum has no jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act  to try and adjudicate the complaint; that the complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act  ,1986. It is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act  with costs.
7. On merits, purchase of laptop from OP No.2 is not admitted for want of knowledge. It is reiterated that OP No.2 is not authorized dealer/ authorized supports service provider. Therefore, it is not liable for any assurance given by OP No.2. It is further stated that on verification of the records maintained by the OP for the calls/complaints lodged by the complainant,  it is learnt that the complainant had called the technical support for assistance for the first time on 21.6.2016.Reference No.4774368583 was allotted to the complaint lodged by her and  onsite engineer Mr. Hardeep, a well trained certified onsite engineer visited the complainant’s location to validate the issue but could not resolve the reported issue as the issue reported was caused due to liquid spilling. Hence the onsite engineer had elevated to the technical team of the OP for further action. The same was rejected/denied repair free of cost as the issue reported did not qualify repair free of cost as per terms of the warranty. It is also admitted that as per limited warranty policy, the option available is to replace the faulty part based on warranty obligations and to proceed further on this issue. The service team required a valid invoice. Hence the complainant vide mail was requested to send the invoice. On receipt of the invoice escalated the issue to the EMT (Technical team) but due to warranty obligation, reported issue has been rejected by EMT (technical team).Only option for the complainant was chargeable repair but she has not agreed for repair on trade basis and is adamant for the free of cost repair which is neither permissible nor a feasible option. After controverting all the averments, the OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
9. In support of her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of invoice, Ex.C1, copy of correspondence through e-mail,Ex.C2, copy of service call report, Ex.C3, copy of e-mails Exs.C4 to C20.
10. The OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nirmala Veera Raghava,Ex.OPA.
11. Complainant also submitted written arguments. Case was pending for arguments. But subsequently none appeared on behalf of OP No.1.As such OP No.1 2was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2018.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant. The complainant has reiterated her stand as taken in the complaint. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
13. The complainant has claimed having purchased the laptop on 18.6.2016.Invoice, Ex.C1 proves this fact. This fact is also not disputed by OP No.1. The laptop was purchased from OP No.2 but OP No.2 has not come forward to deny the claim of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that from the very beginning  the laptop was not properly working. Service call report,Ex.C3 is dated 21.6.2016 i.e. couple of days after purchase. The issue description is “black patch found in the bottom”. Resolution summary is mentioned as under:

“Found some black patches in the display and found some liquid”

14. Therefore, it is proved that defects were reported to the OP No.1 within two days from the date of purchase. The version of the OP No.1 is that the issue was caused due to liquid damage and it did not quality repair free of cost. Therefore, from the written version it emerges that the OP has tried to avoid liability by pleading it a case of liquid damage. The OP was to prove this fact. The OP has tendered into evidence only affidavit of Nirmala Veera Raghava,Ex.OPA. But she has never inspected the product in question. The product was allegedly inspected by one Hardeep Singh. His affidavit is not brought on record to support this fact.
15. It is also relevant to mention that on the application of the complainant, the laptop was got inspected from Supertech Engineers, Chandigarh, which is a Samsung Service Center. In the report, it is reported that their engineer checked and found spots on screen. During inspection no water log or physical damage is found in unit.

This expert opinion has also belied the version of OP No.1 as taken in written version (although not proved). The net conclusion is that the OP No.2 has supplied defective product to the complainant. The complainant raised the issue immediately after purchase but the OPs No.1&2 failed to resolve the issue. Therefore, both OPs No.1&2 are liable for this deficiency in service.

16. Since the product was defective from the very beginning ,therefore, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of Rs.35,600/-.
17. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with cost/compensation of Rs.10,000/-.The OPs no.1&2 are directed to refund the price of Rs.35,600/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the  due amount shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till payment. The complainant will hand over the defective laptop to the OPs before receipt of the payment.
18. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Pronounced

DATED: 16.11.2018    

                         Kanwaljeet Singh   Neelam Gupta    M. P. Singh Pahwa

                              Member                     Member           President