OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL   FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.100/13

Present:-

                             1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.  -  President

                             2)Sri Upendra Nath Deka         -   Member

1.Dr. Pradip Kumar Deka                            -Complainant

2^nd Floor, House No.34

Solapar, Paltan Bazar,

Guwahati-7810008.                                                

          -vs-

1.Managing Director,                                 -Opp. parties

Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.,                                  

Building No.02,DLF Cybergreen

1^st to 4^th Floors, Tower D & E,

DLF Cyber City, Phase-III,

Gurgaon-122022, Haryana.

2.M/S E-World,

Ground Floor, Jayanta Commercial Centre,

 Panchavati, GNB Road, Opp.UCO Bank,

 Silpukhuri,Guwahati-781003.

3.The Area Manager,

Redington (India) Limited,

(Authorised service Centre for HP computer)

Mitra building Commercial, Ground Floor,

Ulubari Ashram Road,Ulubari Chariali,

Guwahati-781007.

4.The Corporate Office,

Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.,

24,Solar puria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road,

Banglore-560030.        

     Appearance-  

     Learned advocate Mr. Promod Kr.Bajaj for the complainant                 

     Learned advocates Mr. Anuran Chetia  and  Mr. P.C. Sarkar for the Opp. parties No.1 & 4.

     Date of argument-                     20.4.2016, 26.5.2016           

      Date of judgment-                      22.9.2016                                        

                                                Judgment

 This is a proceeding u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1.                The complaint filed by Dr.Pradip Kr.Deka against Managing Director, Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd. and three others u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was admitted on 8.10.2013 and notice was served on all the opp.parties.  After receiving their notice opp.party No.1 & 4 filed their written statement. The case against Opp.Party No.3 is proceeding on exparte vide this forum’s order dtd. 11.2.2014 and against Opp.Party No.2 vide order dtd.30.9.2015. In this case the complainant filed evidence on affidavit in support of his case and he was cross-examined by the Ld.counsel of the opp.party. Thereafter, the Opp.Party No.1 & 4 side was given a full opportunity to file their evidence; and on 30.9.2015, on the prayer of the counsel of the Opp.Party No.1 & 4, Mr.Anuran Chetia, the written statement filed by the Opp.Party No.1 & 4 was accepted as evidence of Opp.Party No.1 & 4 but the Opp. Party No. 1 & 4 side failed to produce the concerned officer of opp.party and filed the written statement for cross examination and in result this forum closed the stage of cross examination of witness of Opp.Party No.1 to 4 side and fixed for filing written argument. Ld advocate Mr.Anuran Chetia filed written argument for Opp.Party No.1 & 4 on 20.4.16 and the complainant himself filed his written argument on 26.5.16. Thereafter, on 7.9.16 the complainant and his counsel Ld. advocate Mr.Promod Kr.Bajaj forwarded their oral argument and Ld.counsel Mr.Anuran Chetia forwarded his argument for Opp.Party No.1 & 4. We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of the parties . We have also perused argument of both sides Ld. counsels. We are giving our decision as below-

2.         The complainant’s case in brief is that he had purchased one Desktop computer model HP Pavilion H8 1230,S/N 4CE 2060C2M from the HP’s (Hewlett-packard) authorized dealer M/S E.World, Silphukhuri,Guwahati-3, on 19.4.2012. He had paid full amount of Rs.59,000/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand)only being the cost of the said desktop computer. The warranty of the said desktop computer for the hardware as well as labour cost is for three years. But after purchase the computer was not functioning properly as some horizontal lines appear after starting the computer and windows media player is not playing properly and some website also failed to open with the windows internet explorer and he immediately reported the matter to the dealer M/S E.World, Guwahati in the month of June, 2012, but they did nothing any response to his report. Then he reported the matter to HP Technical support and customer care, sales and services, Gurgaon over toll free number for rectification in the month of June ,2012 itself and they sent service engineer of Redington (India)Ltd, Guwahati (Authorised service centre of HP Desktop computer) and he placed the NVIDIA graphic card on 25.7.2012 and tried to rectify the problem vide  work order No.PC/CW/12/00182 of Redington (India)Ltd, Guwahati, but the problem was not sortedevenafter replacement of graphic card and he, then returned the graphic Card on the advice of HP’s Technical Support and Customer Care, and he then contacted HP’s technical support assistant several times vide ID No.CA 1214054 dated 7.7.2012, CA 1242380 dated 15.10.2012, CA 1254845 dated 3.12.2012, CA 1274680 dated 28.3.2013, CA 1290093 dated 22.7.2013, CA 129 3252 dated 9.8.2013 respectively to sort out the problem and in the period between July,2012 and August,2013 the technical assistant and customer care of the company advised him to go through many process over the telephone for rectification and compelled him to go through downloading different software and also asked him to download the NVIDIA graphic provider from NVIDIA site and sometimes from the HP’s site and sometimes to update the windows etc and so on and he followed all the advices accordingly, but the problem has not beensorted out. In the month of August ,2013 , he reported the matter to M/S E.World, Guwahati , but they did not attend to his complaint and ultimately HP’s technical support and customer care has told him that the defect is due to the problem with ,Microsoft Windows and that needs to be recovered and as per the guidelines a full windows recovery has been done on 8.8.2013, but problem has not been sorted out , even after the windows full recovery and horizontal lines was stillappearing during start of the computer and some websites still could not be opened or accessed. On 9.8.2013 the service engineer of Redington (India)Ltd., Guwahati has visited him on the basis of advised from HP technical assistant and sales and services to look into the matter vide work order No.PC/GW/13/00288 dtd. 9.8.2013 where the service engineer recorded that the problem still not sorted out and some website still could not be opened and the horizontal lines were still appearing while starting the computer. Thereafter, on 24.8.2013 a service engineer of Redington (India)Ltd., Guwahati has done the full windows and the system recovery including the windows update in presence of him vide work order No. CA 1293252 dtd. 24.8.2013 and the   said service engineer also admitted the fact that the problem to open and access some website still persisting the horizontal lines have still not disappearing while starting computer. Failing almost all tests and experiment on the computer by HP’s Technician Assistant and Customer Care planned to change the “Motherboard” of the computer and wanted to to sort out the defect and the company has sent the “Motherboard” to M/S Redington (India)Ltd., Guwahati and communicated to him about the matter and they want to do some more test and experiment on the computer, but he totally fed up with their attitude and so he did not agree to their plan. The computer is presently totally lying idle. He, being compelled sent notice to the company, their authorities also, the service centre and the corporate office requesting them to replace the computer immediately and he also served one month notice to the authorized dealer M/S E World, Silpukhuri, Guwahati on 2.9.2013, HP’s service centre, Redington (India) Ltd, Guwahati on 3.9.2013, Managing Director, Hewlett Packers India Pvt.Ltd.(H.P.) Gurgaon on 5.9.2013 and to their corporate office, Banglore on 5.9.2013, but till now no communication have been made with him by them. Therefore, he pray to this forum to direct the opp.parties to refund an amount of Rs.59,000/- as the cost of the computer, to pay him Rs.7,420/- as interest and also to pay Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

3. The gist of the pleading of Opp.Party No.2 namely M/S E-World, Ground Floor, Jayanta Commercial Centre,Panchavati, GNB Road, Opp.UCO Bank, Silpukhuri, Guwahati is that there is no cause of filing the complaint. The complainant had purchased a Desktop bearing model No. HP Pavilion H8 1230,S/N 4CE 2060C2M from the authorized dealer (Opp.Party No.2) on 19.4.2012 and at the time of purchase of the computer was functioning properly and he informed Opp.Party No.2 about improper functioning in the month of July ,2013 and Opp.Party No.2 quickly suggested him to contact the authorized local H.P.Centre and  Opp.Party No.2 also sent one of their staff to know the know-how about the said computer. But the  Opp.Party No.2 has no authorization for service. Opp.Party No.2 suggested the complainant the right way to get proper relief and also co-operated with him. Opp.Party No.2 is the authorized seller of the H.P.products only and not to do the service. The complainant has not co-operated with the opp.parties for proper communication. The complainant is not entitled for any claim against Opp.Party No.2. Opp.Party No.2 is authorized dealer of H.P.

4.     The gist of the pleading of the Opp.Party No.1 & 4 is that Opp.Party No.4 being manufacturer of various types of computer, laptop, printer, scanner and other IT products and are globally acclaimed for its class and quality and they sell their products and provide service through their authorized channel partners and service centers. The allegation raises against them are all false allegations. The complainant has made base less allegation of manufacturing defects in the computer without relying on in expert report from a recognized laboratory. The said computer has neither manufacturing defects nor they did  deficiency in service towards the complainant. The computer purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and their products are provided by the proper authority. Without expert report, it cannot establish that the said computer had manufacturing defect. After expiry of the warranty period they are not liable to provide any service to the complainant free of cost. The issues report in the computer have been resolved and therefore, the complainant cannot demanded the replacement of the said computer. The computer was purchased by the complainant  on 19.4.2012 and the first issue report on June, 2012 and and hence if it had manufacturing defect, it would have not work properly from the date of its purchase . Authorized service centre repaired the computer and after repairment it is working fine.  After repairment, the complainant is not agree for resolution of issues, but had demanding replacement of the computer, which is not permissible under the warranty policy of them. They have been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances report by the complainant under warranty as and when reported and therefore , the complainant’s demand for replacement is not tenable. The service was also done satisfactorily till the defects were rectified and the computer system was made operational to the satisfaction of the complainant and therefore, the complainant is debarred from claiming any compensation or damages etc. from them. The seller of the computer i.e. Opp.Party No.2 is their authorized dealer. There is no complaint from the complainant as to manufacturing defect of the computer immediately after purchase of the said computer. When the complainant had reported the issues in the computer to the service centre, the same was registered by the service centre and the service centre had attend to the same promptly and also did the repairment and had also replaced the required parts and thereby resolved the issue, but when he reported the issues on 9.8.2013 and 10.8.2013, the service centre had sent an engineer to inspect the computer and resolved the issues, but the complainant had not allowed the engineer to inspect the system or to carry out the repairment. Rather he insisted on repairment of the computer which is not permissible under warranty policy. Being electronic item, the computer have chances of failure on its use due to virus , but issues can be resolved. On the report dated 9.8.2013 HP’s sales and technical support has sent the original recovery disk to Opp.Party No.3 to do the full windows recovery and on 24.8.2013 the engineer of Opp.Party No.3 performed full windows and estimated recovery including the windows update in presence of the complainant vide work order No. CA 1293252 dtd. 24.8.2013. The complainant did not agree for replacement of Motherboard , in fact did not agree for any services offered for the service engineer to resolve the issue in the computer, but is insisting for replacement of the computer . As such , they are not liable to replace the said computer and complainant is also not entitled to any relief as sought.

5.         We have perused the pleading of the complainant and Opp.Party No.1 & 4. We have also perused the evidence adduced.

       We have found that the contesting opp.parties (Opp.Party No.1 and Opp.Party No.4) admit that

1. The complainant had, on 19.4.2012, purchased one desktop computer Model H.P.Pavilion H-8 1230 S/ N 4CE 2060C2M from Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd. ((pp.PartyNo.1 )’s authorized dealer M/S E-World,Guwahati (Opp.Party No.2) paying full price of RS.59,000/-
2.        Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd., (Opp.Party No.1& Opp.Party No.4) are the manufacturer of the desktop computer purchased by the complainant and M/S E-World, Silpukhuri, Guwahati (Opp.Party No.2) from whom the complainant had purchased the said computer is the authorized dealer of Opp.Party No.1, and Redington India Limited, Guwahati branch (Opp.Party No.3) is the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1 and Opp.Party No.3 is responsible to provide service to the purchasers of the products of Opp.Party No.1.
3. The complainant in his pleading as well as in his evidence states that the said computer started to show malfunctioning i.e. appearance of horizontal lines in the screen, some websites failed to open with windows internet explorer, and window media player are not properly playing, and about that facts he reported M/S E.World on June,2012. This version of the complainant is also admitted by Opp.Party No.1 & 4 side. The complainant further states that he also reported the matter to H.P.Technical Support & Customer Care, Sales and Service , Gurgaon over Toll free number and they suspected the problem is due to the fault in the NVIDIA graphic card (Video Card) and the service engineer of Redington India Limited, Guwahati branch (Opp.Party No.3) which is the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1, visited his residence and replaced the NVIDIA Card on 25.7.2012 and tried to rectify the problem as per work order No. PC/GU/12/00182 Serial No.4542 dt.25.7.2012, but the problems persisted and the Video Card (NVIDIA) was returned on advice of Opp.Party No.1. This version of the complainant is admitted by Opp.Party No.1 & 4.
4. The complainant in his evidence further states that in the period between July,2012 to August,2013 the technical assistant of the customer care of the company (OPp.Party No.1) advised him to go through many processes  for rectification and compelled him also to go through downloading different softwares,  and accordingly he did it, but the problems have not been sorted out ; and then he, in the month of August, 2013, reported the matter to M/S E.World, Guwahati ;but they did not respond to his complaint ; and then he ultimately contact HP’s Technical Support and Customer Care, and they told him that the problem might be with the ‘Microsoft windows’ and that needs to be recovered; and accordingly as per their guidelines full windows recovery  was done on 8.8.2013 , but the problem has not been sorted out ; and thereafter, on 9.8.2013 the service engineer of Redington India Ltd, Guwahati (authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.1) has visited in his house on the advice of HP Technical Assistant and Sales and Service to look into the matter vide work order No. PC/GW/13/00288 dtd. 9.8.2013 and he recorded the problem i.e. some websites still could not be opened and horizontal lines were still appearing while starting the computer; and on 24.8.2013 the service engineer of Redington India Ltd., Guwahati, did the full windows and system recovery  including the windows  update in his presence vide work order No. CA 1293252 dtd. 24.8.2013 and the said engineer admitted the fact that the problem to open and access to some websites still persisting, and the horizontal lines were still  appearing  while starting the computer; and failing almost all the tests and experiments  on the computer the HP’s technical assistant and customer care planned to change “Motherboard” of the computer and window to sort out the defects by replacing the  “Motherboard” and they also sent “Motherboard” to Redington India Ltd. and communicated him that they wanted some more tests and experiments on the computer, which was refused by him. These version of the complainant are admitted by the opp.parties. In the argument, opp.party No. 1 & 4 sides clearly admit that there is fault in the LAN port of the “Motherboard” which was detected after almost one and half years of carrying out different tests and examinations on the said computer . Thus, it is crystal clear that the complainant is still persisting defects in the software as well as hard-ware system of it, and as a result the said computer showed defects like appearance of horizontal lines in the screen while it was opened and started, and some websites also failed to open with windows and internet explorers. It is also established that Opp.Party No.1 side through their authorized service centre namely Redington India Ltd. Guwahati tried to remove the said defects for three times in between July ,2012 to August ,2013, but failed to sort out the said problems and still the computer is showing the said defects. It is fact that ultimately Opp.Party No.1 side tried to change the “Motherboard” of the said computer through Opp.Party No.3 and complainant refused to allow them to do so. It is found that the defects in the said computer admittedly detected just after purchase of the said computer, and the said defects could not have been sorted out by Opp.Party No.1 after sending technician staff of Redington India Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati for three  times . These factual situation implies  that the said computer had the said problems/ defect on the very day of purchase of the said computer and the defects could not have been rectified by Opp.Party No.1 side engaging Opp.Party No.3. So, we hold that the computer purchased by the complainant had the said defects on the very day of its purchase which cannot be sorted out. So, we find that the complainant has justified ground to refuse to give permission to Opp.Party No.1 to change the “Motherboard” of the said computer. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to refund of the value of the  computer.
5.  From evidence of the complainant, it is seen that while he found that there was no possibility of rectification of problems in his computer, he sent notice to the opp.parties requesting them to replace the computer vide his notice dtd. 2.9.2013 to Opp.Party No.2, Notice  dated  3.9.2013 to Opp.Party No.3 and notice dated  5.9.2013 to Opp.Party No.1 as well as notice dated   5.9.2013 to Opp.Party No.4. The opp.party side admitted receipt of the said notices. It is seen that after receipt of the said notice the opp.parties namely Opp.Party No.1,2,& 4 for refused to replace the said computer. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get back the price value of his computer i.e. Rs.59,000/- from Opp.Party No.1, and Opp.Party No.4 (manufacturer of the said computer) and Opp.Party No.2 ( the local dealer) from whom he had purchased the computer, to which they are jointly and severally liable. Secondly, for long three years the complainant suffered loss of his professional activities due to defect of the said computer and non-replacement of the said computer, and for such professional loss Opp.Party No.1, Opp.Party No.2 and Opp.Party No.4 are jointly liable to pay compensation to him at least Rs.30,000/- . They are also liable to pay another amount of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony as well as harassment to him. Moreover, they are liable to pay at least Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.6.      Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint   against Opp.Party No.1 (Managing Director, Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd., Building No.02,DLF Cybergreen, 1^st to 4^th Floors, Tower D & E DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122022, Haryana) and Opp.Party No.4( The Corporate Office, Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd., 24,Solar puria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Banglore-560030) is allowed on contest , but against Opp.Party No.2 (M/S E-World, Ground Floor, Jayanta Commercial Centre,Panchavati, GNBRoad, Opp.UCO Bank, Silpukhuri,Guwahati-781003) on exparte, and they are directed to pay Rs.59,000/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand) only to  the complainant as the cost of the said computer along with interest @ 6% from this date till full payment, and also to pay Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) only as compensation for causing professional loss to the complainant, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand)only as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding to which  all of them are jointly and severally liable . We also declare that on payment of the said amounts to the complainant, they are entitled to get back the said computer from the complainant, if they want so. They are directed to make payment as per direction as above within two months, in default of which , other amounts will also carry interest @ 6% per annum.

Given under our hands and se al of this forum on this day 22^th Sep.,2016.

           Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.

        (Mr.U.N. Deka)                                                   (Md.S.Hussain)

         Member                                                                  President