CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.178/2012
SH. MAYANK PANDEY
S/O SH. AVINASH CHANDRA PANDEY
R/O B-2, ANSAL BUILDING, BASEMENT,
BEHIND UCO BANK, DR. MUKHERJI NAGAR,
DELHI-110009
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- INTARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
B-81, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-II, NEW DELHI
ALSO AT:-
A-200, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110020
- HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,
24, SALARPURIA ARENA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030
- M/S UPTEC COMPUTER CONSULTANCY LTD.
LG-5, VINAYAK TOWER, M.G. ROAD,
CIVIL LINES, ALLAHABAD-210001
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:05.07.2017
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of complainant is that on 22.10.09 he purchased a HP laptop from OP-3, authorized dealer of OP-1 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The laptop was purchased for the purpose of education and preparation of CAT examination which was scheduled to be held on 22.11.10. OP-1 is authorized service centre of OP-2. The laptop was having warranty of one year. Initially the receipt was issued in the name of complainant’s father as the manager of shop of OP-3 knew father of complainant. However, the error was rectified on the same day and a detailed invoice was issued in the name of complainant.
In the first week of October 2010, complainant found that disk drive was not reading any CDs or DVDs and was followed by a screen flickering problem. Complainant also noticed that the battery backup was poor and there was excessive heat production from the laptop. On 18.10.2010 complainant deposited his laptop to the HP service centre i.e. OP-1 and registered the screen flickering problem, the ODD(optical disc drive) malfunctioning, poor battery backup and the overheating issue. Complainant was assured that laptop would be rectified and returned in 3-4 days. After few days, complainant contacted customer care and was informed that there was a “CT number mismatch” with the ODD. Complainant had not been provided any information regarding the “CT number” at the time of purchase or after that. He was only given the serial number and product number.
Complainant contacted the officials of OP-2 as well OP-3 and also sent email about his problem to the officials of OP-3 but nothing satisfactory was done. Complainant was asked to collect the laptop from OP-1 on or before 25.11.10 failing which complainant would have to pay demurrage charges of Rs.500/-. On 25.11.10 complainant went to the service centre however on that day the laptop was not made available and finally complainant collected the laptop on 01.12.10. Complainant realized that laptop was still defective as battery backup problem had not been addressed and rectified and when it was brought to notice of OP-1, it was informed that battery needed to be replaced and OP-1 further stated that the battery would be delivered at complainant’s address. After three days the battery was delivered at the residence of complainant without any charge. But the defect regarding screen flickering still existed in the laptop. A legal notice was sent on 18.07.11. Various emails were exchanged between the parties but the problem was not rectified. The false plea was taken regarding the laptop being repaired by some local mechanic. it is also stated that because of the non-availability of the laptop, complainant could only get 97.75 percentile in the examination and therefore failed to clear the examination by few marks. It is stated there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the price of the laptop and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.
OP-1 and OP-3 were proceeded ex parte.
The claim is contested by OP-2 only. OP-2 in reply took the plea that complainant is not a consumer and laptop in question was purchased by one Sh. Avinash Chandra Pandey. It is further stated that the second invoice seems to be manipulated. It is further stated that the first complaint regarding the defect in the laptop was lodged on 18.10.10 just few days before expiry of the warranty as the warranty was to expire on 21.10.10. It is stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop as the same was virtually used for one year.
It is submitted that there was CT number mismatch with the Panel and not with the Optical Disk Drive (ODD). CT number is a unique identity number assigned to each individual part that has been installed in the computer unit, which tracked the system record and a mismatch of CT number gives clarity that the part has been replaced by non-HP authorized person. It is stated that the said replacement by un-authorized person was suppressed by complainant. In this case also mismatch of CT number clearly indicate that there was some unauthorized change in the laptop which may lead to violation of terms and condition of warranty.
It is submitted that a letter was sent to complainant regarding repair of laptop in question and it was informed that the panel could not be repaired due to the CT number mismatch and requested him to receive his laptop which has been repaired.
It is submitted that laptop in question was repaired before the exam of CAT and complainant was informed vide letter dated 10.11.2010 and it is the complainant who has not collected the laptop. OP-1 had assured to replace the battery. A new battery was delivered at the residence of complainant without charging anything. It is stated that CT number issue could not be resolved as mismatch of CT number clearly indicate that said part was changed/replaced by some unauthorized person earlier, which is against the terms and conditions of warranty.
It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the records and carefully perused the written submissions of the parties.
The contention of OP-2 that complainant is not a consumer is without any basis. Complaint has specifically stated that since the owner of OP-3 was known to his father hence sale invoice was prepared in the name of his father, however, the problem was rectified on the same day and a new invoice was issued in the name of complainant. Copy of both the invoices are placed on record. Hence complainant is indeed a consumer.
It is a fact that the laptop was having warranty period of one year. The first complaint regarding the laptop was made only on 18.10.10 i.e. just three days before the expiry of warranty period. Obviously the laptop was used virtually for one year and there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop. On 18.10.10 for the first time i.e. just three days before expiry of warranty period, it was pointed out that there was problem regarding the ODD(optical disc drive), poor battery backup and the overheating issue. All these problems were resolved. However, there was CT number mismatch with the Panel and not with the Optical Disk Drive (ODD). CT number is a unique identity number assigned to each individual part that has been installed in the computer unit, which tracked the system record and a mismatch of CT number gives clarity that the part has been replaced by non-HP authorized person.
The laptop was duly repaired however the problem of Panel was not resolved as there was CT number mismatch which was due to the fact that the same was repaired by the unauthorized person. It is further significant to note that even the battery problem was resolved and the battery was replaced free of cost. There is no reason to disbelieve OP that problem of Panel was not resolved as CT number mismatched. Even the entire laptop has been repaired then there was no question of not repairing CT panel.
It is further significant to note that last email was sent by OP-2 on 26.09.11 wherein it has been stated by OP-2 that this email is being sent as they are not able to contact complainant on phone and they have offered to perform a thorough diagnosis of the unit involving the internal escalation engineer and perform a complete repair (if any required) and hand over the unit to complainant after keeping it under observation with them and the confirmation was sought from the complainant. Probably this has not has not been responded to by complainant. As already stated, laptop was virtually used for one year and whatever defects were rectified except CT Panel and which was due to the said part changed/replaced by some un-authorized person.
Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
