DATE OF FILING : 19.02.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of August, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.47/2010

Between

Complainant : Sanoop A.U., S/o A. Unni,

Amikkattu House,

Kanjiramattom,

Thodupuzha East P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: Ajimon K.P. & Praveen Mathew)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,

Positive Systems, Thodupuzha,

28/693, Panchajanyam Complex,

Thodupuzha - 685 584,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: K.M. Sanu & Georly Kurian)

2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

24, Salapuria, Arena Hosur Main Road,

Adagodi,

Bangalore – 30.

(By Advs: M.M. Lissy & V.M. Bijukumar)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant is a Software Engineer and doing free lands work in online, who purchased a Laptop from the 1^st opposite party, of H.P. Pavilion DV4 1241TX serial, manufactured by HP Company worths Rs.46,999/-, by paying the same. It is having a warranty of one year. After 2 months of the purchase of the same, there showed a white line in the bottom side of the display. Then it was increased and after 15 days, the complete display was affected. On 12.8.2009, the Laptop was entrusted with the 1^st opposite party for servicing the same. The 1^st opposite party serviced the same by changing the display panel without any cost, on 3.10.2009. The display panel costs about Rs.25,000/- at that time. Again white lines are appeared on the display panel like before and so the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for replacing the Laptop and it was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party. But the opposite party never tried to replace the same. The warranty period is only up to 21.4.2010. The complainant used the Laptop only for a few days. The defect caused to the display of the Lap Top developed and display was completely vanished. The non display of the Laptop is equallent to the complete defect of the Laptop. The defect of the Laptop made heavy financial loss to the complainant because the works were became pending. So

(contd...2)

- 2 -

the complainant is entitled to get the compensation for the same and the petition is filed for getting replacement of the Laptop and also for compensation.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, the warranty after sales service back up etc., is directly provided by the Hewlett Packard India Pvt. Ltd., who is the manufacturer of the same. The 1^st opposite party does not have any role in the same. The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer, selling the goods of the said company. This opposite party is not responsible for any manufacturing defect or any other damages of the goods sold by him. If there is any such grievance, the company will directly redress the same. It is admitted that the complainant has purchased an HP make Laptop from the opposite party. This opposite party has not repaired or changed the display panel of the Laptop in question. The same is done by HP company directly. The display panel does not cost Rs.25,000/-. It costs around Rs.5,000/- only. There is no complaint what so ever, for the Laptop sold by this opposite party and it is in a perfectly good condition. No loss is caused to the complainant and this opposite party is not duty bound or liable to give any warranty or after sales service and there is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party.

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed written version and stated that they are engaged in several business ventures, one such being manufacturing Personal Computers, Laptops, printers etc. and supplies the products in the market for sale through wholesalers who further sell it to the retailers. The 2^nd opposite party has no privity of contract with retailer and no control over their business activities. The products manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party are of good quality and its service network extends prompt service to its customers throughout the country. The allegation of the complainant that he purchased an HP Pavilion DV4 1241 TX series Laptop for Rs.46,999/- from the 1^st opposite party on 21.4.2009 is not within the knowledge of the 2^nd opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is neither responsible for, nor liable for, the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant in its independent capacity. If there was a white line seen on the bottom of the display and the display got damaged, there is no problem with the system and it is a minor electronic issue. Moreover, the 2^nd opposite party is a customer friendly company and if a customer has any genuine complaint, the company has no problem in redressing the same. The company has an efficient Complaint Redressals Department and Customer Care Centre with 24 hours toll free numbers. On verifying customer care data base, based on serial number of product purchased by the complainant in the present case, it was found that the complainant has lodged the following complaints:

a. On 22.08.2009 vide Case I.D. No.4602609661 reporting that some horizontal line are coming on LCD for which the Customer Care Centre of this opposite party had replaced the LCD free of cost and the unit was working fine

b. On 06.02.2010 vide Case I.D. No.4610210249 complaining about the vertical line issue for which the Customer Care Centre of this opposite party advised the complainant to visit the service centre to have the system inspected for any repairs. However, for reasons best known to the complainant, the complainant did not bring the product to the authorized service centre.

c. On 20.03.2010 vide Case I.D. No.4612089388 reporting that the Display panel was broken for which the Customer Care Centre of this opposite party on inspection it was learnt that it was Customer Induced Damage, this fact was informed to the complainant and a quote for replacement of the display panel was given to the

(contd...3)

- 3 -

complainant because the physical damage that was caused to the product was not covered under the warranty terms. The 2^nd opposite party further submits that “Any physical damage that may be caused to a product due to burning and primarily due to improper usage by the customer is not covered under the terms of warranty and the same cannot be repaired free of cost and that if it has to be repaired it is possible only on chargeable basis.

When the complainant had lodged the complaints, the same were promptly attended and the issues were rectified by replacing the LCD free of costs by the customer care centre of the 2^nd opposite party and the fact of the replacement of the LCD is also admitted by the complainant. The complainant had lodged the call on 20.03.2010, the customer care centre on inspection found that the damage was physically induced damage as such it had informed the complainant the same cannot be replaced or repaired as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and quote for replacement had given to the complainant was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant kept the Laptop for 3 days to the 1^st opposite party, but the 1^st opposite party did not care to exchange, is not within the knowledge of this opposite party. So the complainant knows very well that the issue in the display panel is due to the physical damage and he also knows that such damage is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty and that he has to bear the cost of the repairs/replacement. And so the claim of the complainant is totally malicious, false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.

6. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting replacement of the defective Laptop. The complainant examined as PW1. PW1 purchased an HP Pavilion 1241 TX serial Laptop worth Rs.46,999/- from the opposite party. It is having warranty of one year. Ext.P1 is the bill for the purchase of the same issued from 1^st opposite party. After 2 months of the purchase, the Laptop

showed problems in its display. White lines were appeared on the bottom of the display portion, it developed and complete display became damaged after 15 days. It was given for service to the 1^st opposite party on 19.8.2009 and they have replaced the display panel with free of cost on 3.10.2009. The display panel costs Rs.25,000/-. Ext.P2 is the service report, supplied by the opposite party. After 2 months, the same problem repeated and PW1 approached the 1^st opposite party on 04.01.2010 for getting replacement of the Laptop. But the opposite party denied the same. Copy of the inward issued by the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the warranty card of the 2^nd opposite party. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for 1^st opposite party, PW1 deposed that the Laptop is working now also. The defect of the Laptop can be seen properly at the 1^st sight itself. So he never tried to get report from the expert. No improper use has been done by PW1. The Manager of the 1^st opposite party is examined as DW1 and it is admitted that the disputed Laptop was sold out by DW1. There is no authorisation for servicing the same. The warranty conditions are operating through the 2^nd opposite party only. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party, DW1 deposed that they are the authorized agent of the 2^nd opposite party. There is one year warranty for the Laptop from the date of sale. Laptop once repaired by the opposite party, but the complainant never registered any complaint after that. DW1 is not aware of the cost repair of the Laptop.

It is admitted by the opposite parties also that there is a defect in the computer which is in the display of the Laptop. They also admitted that the white lines has been formed in the display panel. The complainant produced the Laptop before the Forum and the white lines on the display were shown by the complainant. The opposite parties also admitted that once it was repaired with free of cost and reason for the repair was horizontal lines on the display panel. Ext.P2 service report of the 2^nd opposite party also shows the same. So after it was serviced once on 3^rd October, 2009,

when the same defect repeated, the opposite party stated that the white lines are due to the improper use of the complainant and not because of any manufacturing defect. As per the written version of the 2^nd opposite party, there is an efficient Complaint Redressal Department and Customer Care Centre with 24 hours toll free numbers. On verifying customer care data base, based on serial number of products purchased by the complainant in present case, it was found that the complainant has lodged the complaint on 22.8.2009 reporting some horizontal lines on LCD and the opposite party had replaced the LCD on free of cost and the unit was working fine. On 06.02.2010, vide Case I.D. No.4610210249, complaining about the vertical line issue in the Customer Care Centre advised the complainant to visit the service centre to have the system inspected for any repairs. But the complainant did not bring the product to the authorised service centre. On 20.03.2010, vide Case I.D. No.4612089388 reporting that the display panel was broken for which the customer care centre of the opposite party on inspection it was learnt that, it was customer induced damage and it was informed to the complainant. The improper use of the customer is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty.

So it is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party in his customer care centre itself the complainant lodged complaint about the display of the Laptop. On 22.8.2009, there was a problem of horizontal lines on the display and the LCD was replaced in free of cost. On 6.2.2010, there is a complaint of vertical lines on the LCD of the Laptop, but the complainant did not bring the product to authorised service station as per the opposite party. On 20.03.2010, the same complaint was reported and recorded as display panel was broken. But the opposite party, when inspection, it was found that, it was because of improper use. But we think that the Laptop was became defective after 2 months of the purchase and the opposite parties themselves rectified the same by replacing the LCD. Again the same complaint is repeated, in the warranty period and display has been completely broken. The matter was informed to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by the complainant several times, the display panel completely affected, but the opposite party never tried to replace the same, even after repeated demands, by saying that it is because of the improper use of the complainant.

So we think that the Laptop became defective after 2 months of the purchase and the same defect was repeated several times, it means that there is a manufacturing defect to the Laptop. The complainant who is a Software Engineer, he was working free lands in online through the Laptop and we do not think that it is because of the improper use of the complainant that the defect was caused. And it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party, not to rectify the defect of the Laptop. So we think that it is proper to replace a fresh Laptop because the same complaint repeated for several times. The display damage is a major defect to the Laptop equal to the complete defect of the system. 1^st opposite party admitted that he is an authorized agent of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant approached both opposite parties for curing the defect, but both opposite parties denied the same.

Hence the petition allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to replace the Laptop purchased by the complainant from the opposite party with a new one of the same configuration after taking back the old one or pay Rs.46,999/- as per Ext.P1 bill and also pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of August, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sanoop A.U.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

DW1 - Abin P. Sreenivasan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Bill for Rs.46,999/-, issued by the opposite party to the complainant, dated 21.4.2009.

Ext.P2 - Service Centre Call Report supplied by the opposite party.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the inward issued by the opposite party dated 4.1.2010.

Ext.P4 - Warranty card of the opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

Nil.