PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 12/12/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 686/2011
Between
N.V. Ramachandran, : Complainant
Narangamuri, (Party-in-person)
Ammankovil Cross road,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 035.
And
1. M/s. Hewlett Pacard, : Opposite parties
Ground floor, Crowne Plaza, (1sto. p By Adv. P. Fazil,
New Friends Colony, M/s. Lawyers United
New Delhi-110 065. G.50A, Panampally Nagar,
Ernakulam, Kochi-36)
2. M/s. Online IT shoppe Ltd., (party-in-person)
Ravipuram road,
Valanjambalam,
Kochi-682 016.
3. M/s. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Ravipuram road,
Kochi-682 016.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant purchased a HP Lap top computer Model G 62-361 TX from the 2nd opposite party on 30-12-2010. The same was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The product is covered by warranty for one year. Within a few days of its purchase, the lap top began to show some problems and subsequently it stopped booting. The complainant contacted the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party after examination of the lap top on 08-07-2011 informed the complainant, that the Hard Disk is defective. After a few days they returned the Lap top stating to have replaced the Hard Disk and advised the complainant to order Recovery CD directly from the 1st opposite party. A few days after the alleged replacement of the Hard Disk, the Lap top again developed the former problem. The complainant again lodged a complaint on
14-11-2011. Even though the technician of the opposite party examined the lap top the defects persisted. Again the technician of the 3rd opposite party examined the machine and informed that the recovery CD received by the complainant is defective, and advised to approach the 1st opposite party. The complainant received the second recovery CD. But so far the 3rd opposite party has not turned up. Due to the replacement of the Hard Disk some important personal files installed in the system were destroyed, causing pecuniary loss to the complainant. The complainant caused registered notice calling upon the opposite parties to replace the lap top together with damages. But there was no response. So the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the disputed HP Lap top with another one along with damages and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:
The product manufactured by the 1st opposite party 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 customers of all laptops manufactured by the 1st opposite party are provided services through a large network of authorized dealers and H.P. Authorized service centre. The averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intent. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the lap top without relying on any expert report. The complainant had purchased the laptop on 30-12-2010 after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. The subject laptop had a warranty of one year from the date of sale. The asserted complaints of laptop showing abnormalities and subsequently stopped booting was reported on 08-07-2011 within the duration of warranty. The 3rd opposite party diagnosed and found issue with hard disk & replaced the spare and informed the complainant to request for the recovery disk. The complainant got the recovery CDs from the 1st opposite party and the issue was resolved. After four months the complainant again lodged the same complaint on 14-11-2011. The problem is related to software which will resolve by the proper recovery CD. The opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty as and when reported. There has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
The 2nd opposite party is the dealer. The 2nd opposite party is not authorized to open the system during the warranty period. The complainant doesn’t have any annual maintenance contract with the 2nd opposite party. As a dealer the 2nd opposite party have made efforts to rectify the complaint and would further take earnest effort to rectify the defects in consultation with the 1st opposite party.
4. The complainant appeared in person, he was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on this side. The 1st and the 2nd opposite party appeared through counsel. Both of them did not adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. Head both sides.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the allegations made in the complaint is genuine? If
so what is the remedy available to the complainant?
ii. Compensation and costs if any.
5. Points Nos. i & ii. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a lap top on 30-12-2010. The same went out of order on several occasions within the warranty period and its parts were replaced. On the Last occasion the lap top became defunct due to the defects of recovery C.D. The same was obtained from the 1st opposite party but the 3rd opposite party did not install the same. According to the complainant due to the replacement of the Hard disk some important personal files installed in the lap top were destroyed. He further contented that he could not properly utilize the broad band net connection.
6. On a perusal of the evidence on record it appears that on different occasions the 3rd opposite party repaired the lap top and replaced its parts. All repairs were done within the warranty period. The same is admitted by the 1st opposite party. During cross-examination PW1 admitted that the computer is working from 22-12-2011 onwards. No expert evidence is on record to prove that the lap top is a Sub standard quality. In view of the above we are not ordering to replace the device in question. However the complainant is entitled to get the warranty of the lap top extended for a further period of one year by the 1st opposite party. Admittedly on different occasions the laptop was repaired and its complaint fully rectified only after the institution of this complaint. Naturally during these period the complainant was deprived of enjoying the benefits out of the disputed device for which the 1st opposite party is answerable. Hence the 1st opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the inconveniences suffered by the complainant. We fix the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- not to mention which includes costs of the proceedings.
7. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The 1st opposite party shall provide to the complainant one
year fresh warranty to the disputed laptop from 22-12-2011.
ii. The 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- towards
compensation to the complainant for the reasons stated
above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the day fixed for compliance of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Receipt dt. 31/12/2010
A2 : Service call report.
A3 : Service call report
A4 : “ “ dated15/11/2011
A5 : Service call report dt. 05/12/2011
A6 : Copy of invoice dt. 07-12-2011
A7 : Copy of receipt dt. 27/10/2011
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 30-11-2011
A9 : copy of letter dt. 07-12-2011
A10 : service call report dt. 19/10/2011
A11 : copy of service call report
dt. 22/12//2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
