DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.338 of 20-08-2013

Decided on 20-01-2014

Sandeep Bansal aged about 28 years S/o Durga Dass Bansal S/o Gurdial Mall R/o H.No.17167. St.No.4, Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Hewlett Packart India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Banglore-560030, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Mahavir Computers, Nai Basti, St. No.6, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.M/s Aforeserve.com Limited, Service Call Centre, Grover Complex, FF Shop No.2739/AB, Bathinda, through its Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Bhuvnesh Kumar, counsel for the opposite party No.1.

Sh.Vikas Singla, counsel for the opposite party No.2.

Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that being allured by the tall claims of the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased one laptop HP Pavillion G6-2230Tx for Rs.33,500/- vide cash memo No.1150, from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with two years guaranty on dated 27.12.2012. At the time of selling of the abovesaid laptop, the opposite parties assured him that it is of the best quality and its maintenance is free as compared to the product of any other company. The complainant started using the abovesaid laptop as per the instructions and recommendations given by the opposite parties, but it started creating problems as it is not running smoothly and stops working at anytime all of sudden even within a minute of its start and shut down automatically without any indication. Despite several repairs, the said defect has not been removed. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3, the service centre of the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda, it initially told him that there is a defect in the battery of the laptop in question. The mechanic of the opposite party No.3 tried to repair the abovesaid laptop, but could not rectify the defect and orally told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in it that cannot be repaired/removed. The complainant many times visited the opposite party No.3 and made several telephone calls and requested it to replace the laptop in question as it is not in a working condition as it all of sudden shut down without any indication during its running at any time, but the opposite parties postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the laptop in question with new one or in alternative to refund its price alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The products manufactured by the opposite party No.1 pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production, these are approved by the appropriate authority which is highest body to certify the IT products and go through a process of the quality inspection before dispatching to the authorized channel partner for the sale on a 'principal to principal' basis. The opposite party No.1 set up its network by the authorized service centres to provide the services for the minor repairs, major repairs, spare parts support and carry out the physical damage repairs to the products manufactured by it. The toll free helpline number (Monday to Friday) 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM (excluding public holidays) has also been provided to the customers for attending any service/repairs, thus providing assistance to the customers in the distress situation. The laptop in question is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant has purchased the abovesaid laptop after being satisfied with its condition and performance. All the products manufactured by the opposite party No.1 are marketed only after being approved by the appropriate authority. All the products manufactured in the factory of the opposite party No.1 are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the country quality department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. The complainant has been alleging the manufacturing defect in the laptop in question without producing any expert opinion to the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the abovesaid laptop suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in it. The laptop in question had a warranty of one year from the date of its sale and it is within the warranty period. The battery is consumable spare of the laptop in question and on inspection it was found that the battery has not been charged up to its requirement, so the complainant was suggested to calibrate the battery and charge as it is been designed. Thereafter the complainant has not contacted or filed any complaint to the opposite party No.1 or its service centre. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid laptop on 27.12.2012 and reported the problem relating to the battery backup in the abovesaid laptop, which shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the complainant has not reported any other issue in the laptop to its customer care centre or authorized service centre and as the laptop in question is still under the warranty, the opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to resolve the issues, if any, in it with the appropriate repairs as such the complainant is at liberty to approach the opposite party No.1 or any of its customer care centre/authorized service centre and get the issues in the laptop, if any, resolved as per the terms of the warranty.

3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it never allured the complainant to purchase the laptop in question, rather he approached the opposite party No.2 with a pre-determined mind to purchase the laptop of HP company, it disclosed him its entire configuration and being fully satisfied with the quality, he purchased the abovesaid laptop. The opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the abovesaid laptop and the opposite party No.3 is the service centre of the opposite party No.1, shall be responsible to provide the service in case of any problem occurred in it and as per the terms and conditions of the bill, it is clearly mentioned at serial No.5 that all warranty claims are subject to the terms of the principal manufacturer. The complainant has purchased the abovesaid laptop after carefully checking and there was no defect in it. After the purchase of the abovesaid laptop the complainant once again visited the shop of the opposite party No.2 and complained regarding some defect in it, it requested him to approach the opposite party No.3. Thereafter the complainant has not visited the shop of the opposite party No.2 and has not complained regarding any defect in the laptop in question.

4. Notice by hand/dasti was sent to the opposite party No.3 and the same was received on 20.9.2013 by one Vinnu Kumar Dhiman, but despite receiving the summons none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one laptop HP Pavillion G6-2230Tx for Rs.33,500/- vide invoice No.1150, from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with two years guarantee on dated 27.12.2012. At the time of selling of the abovesaid laptop, the opposite parties assured him that it is of the best quality and its maintenance is free as compared to the product of any other company. The complainant started using the abovesaid laptop as per the instructions and recommendations given by the opposite parties, but it started creating problems as it stops working at anytime

8. The abovesaid laptop starting giving the problem soon after its purchase as it was not working smoothly. The complainant has submitted that the abovesaid laptop stops working at any time even within a minute of its start as all of sudden it shut down automatically without any indication and the said defect has occurred time and again in it despite repeated repairs. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3, the service centre of the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda, it conveyed him that there is a defect in the battery of the abovesaid laptop. The mechanic of the opposite party No.3 tried to repair the abovesaid laptop, but could not rectify the defect and orally told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in it that cannot be repaired/removed. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to replace the laptop in question as the same is not in a working condition but nothing has been done by the opposite parties.

9. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the products manufactured and marketed by it, are approved by the appropriate authority, which is highest body to certify the IT products and pass through the stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production and go through a process of the quality inspection before dispatching to the authorized channel partner for the sale on a 'principal to principal' basis. The laptop sold to the complainant is a high quality product and there is no manufacturing defect in it. The abovesaid laptop has been given to the complainant with one year warranty. The complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in it. There is problem relating to battery backup. The battery is a consumable spare of the laptop and on inspection it was found that the battery has not been charged up to its requirement. The complainant was suggested to calibrate the battery and charge as it is been

designed. Thereafter the complainant has not contacted or lodged any complaint to the opposite parties.

10. The opposite party No.2 submitted that it has sold the abovesaid laptop to the complainant, but it never allured him to purchase the laptop in question. The complainant with his pre-determined mind has purchased the laptop of HP company. The opposite party No.2 disclosed the complainant the entire configuration of the abovesaid laptop and being fully satisfied with its quality, he purchased the same. The warranty on the laptop in question is to be provided by the company and all warranty claims are subject to the terms of the principal manufacturer. There is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question.

11. To support his version the complainant has placed on file Ex.C4 dated 29.4.2013, showing the battery issue and has also placed on file Ex.C5 and in this problem description is given as battery issue and demo engineer diagnosis is given as 'needs to diagnose'. The opposite party No.3 has sent an e-mail to the complainant vide Ex.C3, in which it has specifically mentioned that the battery is operating and functioning as designed and within specification. However, if additional computer operating time is desired, the power management settings can be adjusted or a new battery may be purchased. No further action is required for this status. Kindly calibrate the battery as well.

12. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. There is problem regarding the battery back up only in the abovesaid laptop, for this the opposite party No.3 suggested the complainant to calibrate its battery, besides the complaint of the battery backup, no other complaint has been reported by the complainant.

13. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 as they despite repeated repairs, have failed to rectify the defect of battery backup in the laptop in question. Hence this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to replace the battery of the laptop in question with new one to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the old battery to the opposite party Nos.1 and 3.

14. The compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-01-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member