Order-14.

Date-27/07/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP2 is the registered office of Authorized Service Centre of HP Laptop and OP1 is the Branch Office of OP2, The OP3 is the Authorized Centre of HP Laptop and Branch of OP4 and OP5 is the Registered Office of HP laptops manufacturers.

          Further case of the complainant is that he purchased a HP Laptop, 15-R006TX for an amount of Rs.34,000/- from the OP3and after using the same within two weeks of purchase there occurred problems with the laptop and it was also not able to detect the pen drives.  Immediately she took the laptop to OP1 which is an authorized service centre of HP Laptop and after inspection they asked her to submit laptop for repair and later she was informed that there was a physical damage in the laptop which is not covered under warranty and for repair of the same the complainant was asked to pay around Rs.20,000/- for the change of motherboard and left slot on which complainant strictly refused about physical damages but OP refused to resolve the issue, when she received the laptop back she found that the OP handed over the laptop which was dead in state and was not functioning.  So, complainant immediately complained with the OP which completely overlooked by them and the conduct of the OP disappointed the complainant and in fact complainant realized that she has been cheated due to defective set and deficient manner of service and unmannerly conduct and practices on the part of the OPs. 

          In fact, OPs are taken unreasonable time to result her grievance and they have not solve the problem for which the complainant suffered much, in fact, for the very act of the OPs complainant has been frustrated for negligent and deficient manner of service at the same time complainant suffered immense loss of money for such bad conduct and for which complainant filed this complaint for deficiency and negligent manner of service and also for not giving service as per warranty clause.   In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for relief and redressal against the OP.

          OP5 Hewlatt – Packard by filing written statement submitted that the present complaint is false and fabricated.  There was no manufacturing defect or any sort of defect of any product which was purchased by the complainant from OP3 and practically the product of the complainant is duly certified for quality related peripheral components and there was no defect in the said laptop.  Further it is submitted that warranty benefits provided by the OP on the said laptop are for a definite period and the warranty is explicit and the terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms that the warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the warranty ends date has been reached but as per warranty it does not provide any service or remedy available free of cost, if the complainant in relation to the product occurs after the stipulated warranty period or in violation of the terms of warranty.  Even if the fault occurs before the expiry period of the warranty, the OP is not liable to provide any service to the customer, free of cost, if the customer communicates such fault to the OP.  In the case in hand, the subject laptop had warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase.  That the laptop was reported for the issue of left side port, on inspection of the laptop, it was learnt that the USB pin damaged, hence the call was rejected for warranty replacement as the reported issue is not covered under the warranty and on conformation the service personal/technical team of the answering OP sent a mail along with photo of the damaged part to the complainant and informed that as per the terms of warranty the reported issued is not covered under the warranty and further had offered to resolve the issues by replacing the parts required on chargeable basis and shared the quotation for the part replacement but the complainant had denied the same and demanded the replacement of the laptop in spite of explaining her that the issues reported in the laptop can be resolved by part replacement.  It was further informed that the replacement of the laptop is not permissible under the terms of the warranty policy of the OP.  so, in the above circumstances, complainant has failed to prove that the present complaint should be dismissed and service centre is always ready to repair it subject payment of chargeable amount as it was reported to the complainant.

          On the other OPs1 and 2 by filing written statement has submitted that the OPs1 and 2 are neither the manufacturer nor sold the laptop to the complainant but they are the service centre and they examined the said laptop and invariably due to void of warranty on account of complainant’s negligent on laptop i.e. left side USB Port pin dent/damage, the same categorized as Customer Induced Defect (CID) by the manufacturer in its warranty policy and hence the laptop could not be treated to be under warranty and further OPs 1 and 2 shall not be held responsible for admitted cost of the product which was paid by the complainant only the OP3 and not the answering OPs1 and 2.  So, in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed against the OPs 1 and 2.

          But other OPs have not appeared to contest the case even after receipt of the notice.  So, the case is finally heard for decision.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the entire materials on record including the fact as disclosed in the complaint and the defence as taken by the OPs it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the said laptop no doubt from OPs on good payment of Rs.34,000/- on 22-09-2014.  Truth is that on 18-10-2014 complainant reported the matter to the Service Centre of HP and HP Service Centre’s mechanic found left USB port was not working and also found left USB port bent and customer Panchami Paul Choudhury signed in the said receipt and after that they asked the complainant to pay money for repairing charges but complainant challenged that no damage was caused by her.  After that the authority of the OP, the manufacturer also reported that such damage does not cover the warranty.  Anyhow, after considering the entire matter we have gathered that how just after purchase a laptop is found not working if actually there was no internal defect, truth is that the technician and mechanic of the OP i.e. service centre reported that the said left USB port bend and it is the defence of the OP that damage was caused by the customer at the time of use or at the time of fixing pen drive etc. which does not support the present defence of HP about damages.  But considering the entire facts and circumstances, we find that a new set of laptop was purchased by the complainant which is undisputed and was used for two weeks.  Thereafter, this damage was detected.  Then invariably there is some weakness in respect of the said USB port and somehow it was bent but there was no reason for bent of that USB port when it is easy to place any pen drive but if actually what any special type of pen drive was required to be used in that case such information should be supplied by the company by literature at the time of sale and the minimum instruction should be given by the dealer to the purchaser so that the product can be properly used but no such instruction or no such information was given by the service centre or by the dealer for various reason for which the USB port may be found bent but there is no such proof that it was done by the complainant.  Whatever it may be such a matter ought to have been considered by the manufacturer and service centre when there is warranty but most interesting factor is that this warranty paper is not with the complainant and that was not supplied by the dealer and it was kept in their custody for future reference.  But we have gathered from the written version of the OP that the said laptop requires some repair and after repairing it will run properly.  On behalf of the OP1 it is submitted that they will repair on their own cost but question of replacement does not arise.  Service Centre Authority OPs1 and 2 submitted that if it shall be deposited by complainant and such an order is passed by this Forum they shall repair it but the material shall be supplied by the OP5.  OP5 also submitted that they cannot anyway replace the said laptop by a new one because it is a repairable unit even if it is caused by the complainant, they shall have to repair it at their own cost.  Accordingly, as per version of the OPs1, 2 and 5 we already directed the complainant to deposit the item for repair to the service centre and also directed the OPs1 and 2 to repair it and also OPs to supply such materials which are required for repairing of the said laptop and to make it usable in all respect and they submitted to pass such final order on the basis of such admission and also considering status of the laptop at present and further considering that the said problem as detected within warranty period no doubt, the complaint is disposed of on admission of the OPs 1,2 and 5 and considering that fact we are directing the OPs1 and 2 to hand over a receipt after receipt of such laptop and OP5 shall have to supply all the materials which was required for proper repairing made by the OPs1 and 2 and invariably OPs 1,2 and 5 shall have to make it smoothly usable by the complainant by making proper repair and by placing required new items which are required for repair and that shall be supplied by the OPs immediately and it will be completed within one month from the date of this order.

In this case it is found that the seller to whom complainant went again and again for getting the warranty card, OP3 did not supply it not only that OP3 did not render any service to the complainant though again and again complainant went to the OP3 because OP3 kept the warranty card in their custody.  At the same time it is the duty of the OP3 to give such proper instruction for using the said laptop when we have learnt that all types of USB ports are found in the market but same do not support the present laptop but a particular type of USB port is required to be placed but all these instructions has not been given by the dealer and at the same time the guideline for using such laptop was not supplied by the OP3 and further OP3 kept the warranty card without supplying the same which is no doubt unfair trade practice on the part of the dealer and practically it is the responsibility of seller to give all source of information about use of any special type of laptop and in its feature and nature for proper handling by the purchaser but that was not supplied by the OP3.  OP3 seller received the notice but did not contest the case so, considering that fact we have gathered that complainant has been practically harassed by the dealer, the OP3 and OP3 is now out of the picture though he received the summon and in fact, at the time of filing written statement if OP refuses to accept that there was any warranty card in that case complainant shall be placed in another trouble to prove that there is any warranty but anyhow OPs1,2 and 5 have not challenged the same for which we are disposing of the matter because there is warranty in respect of the said laptop and for which considering the negligence and deficient manner of service on the part of the OP3 complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the OP3 and OP3 is bound to pay the same for his negative attitude towards customer and at the same time negligent and deficient manner of service for not supplying the warranty and/or all other information related to handling the said laptop by the users (purchasers) or the consumer but anyhow the OPs1 and 2 are not liable because they are service centre, who did their work as per guideline of the manufacturer.

          Anyhow it was the duty of the service centre to report the matter to the company but that service centre authority submitted that they reported the same to the company and company approved their findings.

          Considering that fact we are not imposing any penalty to OPs1,2 and 5 but we are directing them to make this laptop fit for using without any further problem so that the complainant may use it smoothly without facing any further disturbances to use it.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs1, 2 and 5 without any but same is allowed ex parte against OPs 3 and 4 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. 

          Accordingly, OPs1 and 2 and hereby directed to repair the said laptop after receiving the same from the complainant and complainant is directed to hand over the said laptop to OPs 1 and 2 immediately and on receipt of the said laptop by OPs1 and 2, OPs1 and 2 have make it fit for proper use by the complainant after replacement of such parts which are required to be replaced and OP5 shall have to supply all required parts of the said laptop to the OPs1 and 2 for completion of the repair work of the said laptop and after completion of the repair of the laptop it must be handed over to the complainant on proper receipt and OP shall have to give another one year warranty in respect of the said laptop in favour of the complainant on and from the date of receipt of the repaired laptop from its Service Centre OPs1 and 2 and during enhancement period of warranty invariably OP5 and OPs1 and 2 shall give all sorts of services if required by the complainant in respect of the laptop.

          OPs 1,2 and 5 are directed to comply the order within one month from date of receipt of the laptop by the service centre OPs1 and 2 from the complainant.

          OPs 3 and 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing harassment to the complainant and also for not supplying the warranty card at the time of handing over the laptop when she purchased it on 22-09-2014 and also for harassing her when she went to them for getting relief and resolving the problem what she faced in using the said laptop and OPs 3 and 4 jointly and severally pay the compensation including litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- that is total Rs.15,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order OPs3 and 4 shall have to pay penal damages  at the rate of100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum by the OPs 3 and 4.

          Similarly OPs1,2 and 5 directed to comply the order as per sprit of the order within one month from the date of receipt of the laptop to the Service Centre from the complainant and even if it is not completed OPs shall have to pay further penal damages as it would be  at the rate of100/- per day till delivery of the item to the complainant.  Said penalty shall be deposited to this Forum.

          If OPs are found reluctant to comply that order in that case penal action shall be started against them u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.