| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.110 of 17-04-2018 Decided on 03-07-2019 Hardip Singh aged about 40 years R/o Doctors Enclave, Stadium Road, Patiala Now R/o Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Barnala Road, Bhucho Kalan, Distt. Bathinda, Now Deceased, through his LR Tarandeep Kaur widow of Hardip Singh R/o Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Barnala Road, Bhucho Kalan, Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.M/s Laptop Country, SCO No.11-12, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, through its Prop./Partner. (Deleted) 2.Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bengaluru/Bangalore-560017, through its MD/Chairman. 3.Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.2393/1, First Floor, 100 Ft. Road Near Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Mrs. Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Jeevanjot Singh Sethi, Advocate. Opposite party No.1: Deleted. For opposite party No.2: Sh.Shaminder Singh Sandhu, proxy Advocate. Opposite party No.3: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Hardip Singh (Since deceased and now represented by his LR Tarandeep Kaur) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Laptop Country and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that Hardip Singh (since deceased) purchased one laptop make HP for Rs.26,000/- vide invoice dated 26.11.2015 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of HP at Bathinda. At the time of purchase, opposite party No.1 assured that there is no defect in the laptop and it is of best quality and also assured to provide best services by the authorized service centers of opposite party No.2 throughout India, during the warranty period, in case of any type of defect in its functioning. It is alleged that right from the day of purchase, the laptop started giving functional troubles (start up problems, sometimes everyday, for 4/5 days continuously, sometimes after 15 days and sometimes after 1/2 months). Rattled by the development, the complainant called opposite party No.2 HP customer helpline. It was told to him that there could be software issue in the laptop and advised him to visit dealer of opposite party No.2 and to ask the dealer to change the window software. The complainant followed the instructions and visited opposite party No.1, but even thereafter the problem continued. This happened 3/4 times, but the issue was not resolved. After failing to resolve the issue, the authorized representatives of opposite party No.1 and 2 told the complainant to visit HP Service Centre. It is further alleged that after examining the machine, the engineers at HP Service Centre told that there was an issue with the settings, which was fixed, but after few days, it again created start up problem. The complainant lodged the complaint. An engineer visited the house of the complainant and installed some software in the laptop to fix the issue, but that was also not the solution. After working on the laptop to set it right, HP service centre informed the complainant that there was a problem in the mother board and it would replace the same with new one. Accordingly, the mother board was replaced. Even after replacement of the mother board, the laptop again started creating startup problem as there is inherent manufacturing defect in it and this incidence happened few days before the expiry of the warranty. It is further alleged that the complainant clearly mentioned in his response in work sheet that the laptop was not working properly and need to be replaced. The complainant approached the customer helpline forum. On call from the customer relationship manager of opposite party No.2, the complainant again visited HP Service Centre. It was again revealed that there was need to change the mother board again. After exhausting every effort to set right the machine, it is still not working as there is inherent manufacturing defect in it. It is further alleged that on 28.7.2017, the complainant again took the laptop to opposite party No.2. After checking the laptop, the complainant was told that the system/mother board is required to be exchanged, but opposite party No.3 is having no permission for the same from the company i.e. opposite party No.2. The laptop was returned back to the complainant. Even after 28.7.2017, the complainant repeatedly requested opposite parries to replace the defective laptop with new one as there is inherent manufacturing defect in the laptop, but to no effect. He also got issued legal notice dated 17.8.2017 to opposite party No.2 with request to replace the laptop with new one, but opposite party No.2 kept on putting off the matter on one or other false pretext. Ultimately two days back, opposite parties refused to provide any service to the complainant and also to replace the laptop with new one. It is also alleged that due to the acts on part of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from huge mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, loss of study and huge financial loss. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in addition to cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5500/- and replacement of the laptop with new one or to refund of its price i.e. Rs.29,000/-. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In its written version, opposite party No.2 has revealed that its name earlier known as Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd has been changed to HP India Sales Private Limited. It is company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is having its registered/corporate office at Bangalore. The products that are manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.2 are approved by the appropriate authority, which is highest body to certify the IT products. The products also go through 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 the products manufactured by opposite party No.2 are provided through a large network of authorized channel services partners and service centres. These service centres provide services, minor repairs, major repairs, spare parts support and even carry out physical damage repairs to the products. Thereafter opposite party No.2 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is an abuse of process of law. The averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intent. There is no expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory U/s 13 (1) of 'Act'. The complaint does not fall within the definition of 'consumer dispute' under 'Act' as there is neither any defect proved in the laptop nor any deficiency in service is being established against opposite party No.2. The warranty benefits provided by opposite party No.2 on the laptop is for a defined period. The warranty is explicit and terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms that the warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or 'warranty ends' date has been reached. It does not provide any service/remedy available under the warranty free of cost, if the complaint in relation to the product occurs after the expiry of the stipulated warranty period. Even if the fault occurs before the expiry period of the warranty, opposite party No.2 is not to provide any service to the customer free of cost, if he communicates such fault to opposite party No.2 after the expiry of the warranty period or for faults occurred due to improper maintenance of the product and which has been caused to the failure in following the guidelines/procedures as recommended by opposite party No.2 in the user manual. It is further mentioned that in this case, the laptop had standard warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase, as on date it is out of the warranty period. On verification of the data base, maintained by opposite party No.2 based on the serial number of the laptop for the calls/complaints lodged to the customer care centre/authorized of opposite party No.2, it is found that the complainant reported issues in respect of the laptop to the customer care centre/authorized service centre.That for the issues reported within the warranty period, the service team subjected the laptop for diagnose and had resolved the issues by carrying out the repairs and replacing the required parts as per the terms of the warranty. The complainant again reported issues in the laptop after the expiry of the warranty period. The service team of opposite party No.2, on verification learnt that the asserted complaints were reported to the service centre after expiry of the warranty. As such, the complainant was offered chargeable support as per the warranty obligation, but he denied for same. He insisted on free of costs repair. The service team explained that repair free of costs is not permissible, but the complainant is still adamant on his stand and he has filed the complaint demanding for replacement of the laptop or refund of its price, suppressing the material facts from this Forum. As such, the complaint is prima-facie unsustainable. It is further mentioned that the laptop is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and its working depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and software installed on the system. Any mishandling of the system or installing pirated software would hamper the proper working of the system. Therefore, if any component is defective, either changing the same or repairing the same would solve the entire issue with the computer/laptop. The laptop was reported for issues. The service team of opposite party No.2 promptly attended to issues reported and resolved the issues reported within the warranty period. There are no known issues, manufacturing defects or technical faults in the laptop. This Forum has no jurisdiction U/s 11 of 'Act' to entertain, try and adjudicate the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed U/s 26 of 'Act' with costs. On merits,it is not denied that the complainant has purchased one laptop for Rs.26,000/- on 26.11.2015, but it is stated to be matter of record. It is further pleaded that first complaint in respect of the laptop was logged during August 2016 i.e. almost 8 months from the date of purchase. This fact shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop, otherwise, laptop would have not performed from day one of its purchase. Every reported difficulty of the complainant at every given point of time reported was immediately attended. The issues reported within the warranty period were resolved by carrying out repair and replacement of the required parts as per the terms of the warranty. The second complaint was lodged on 5.10.2016. Opposite party No.2 resolved the complaint by carrying out repair/performing trouble shooting and replacing the mother board. Regarding further complaints, the service team noticed that the warranty provided to the laptop was for 1 year from the date of purchase and same has expired. As such, the service team offered to resolve the reported issue/to replace the mother board on chargeable basis as per the warranty obligations. All other averments of the complainant are categorically denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of reminder letter, (Ex.C1); postal receipts, (Ex.C2); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C3); photocopies of service call reports, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6) and photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C7). To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nirmala Veera Raghava 1.8.2018, (Ex.OP2/1). It is relevant to mention that after evidence of parties, application was moved for disclosing that the complainant Hardip Singh has expired. As such, his LRs. were ordered to be brought on record. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admittedly, the laptop was purchased by the complainant on 26.11.2015. The invoice, (Ex.C3) also proves this fact. The warranty was for 12 months, which was to expire on 25.11.2016. It is admitted case of the complainant that on his first complaint, window software was changed. It is also his admitted case that on his second complaint, mother board was replaced by opposite party No.2 free of cost being within warranty period. He has not mentioned dates of these complaints and dates on which the issue was resolved. The complainant has brought on record service call reports, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6). Ex.C5, is service call report dated 16.8.2016 and issue reported was 'power on issue' and mother board was replaced. As per service call report, (Ex.C6), call log was dated 5.10.2016 and arrival was dated 8.10.2016 and issue was fixed by 8.10.2016. Issue description was also 'sometime power on issue'. Resolution summary shows 'power on/off 15 to 18 times, working fine and observation, need to senior advice'. Therefore, from this resolution summary, it can be inferred that actually, there was no problem noticed at that time as product was found working fine even by power on/off for 15 to 18 times. Last service call report is dated 28.7.2017, (Ex.C4). There is no other service call report/complaint between after 8.10.2016 and before 28.7.2017 i.e. between period of about 10 months. Moreover warranty has already elapsed on 25.11.2016. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were not under obligation to provide free services after expiry of warranty period. Although, the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the laptop, but there is no evidence to prove manufacturing defect in it. For the reasons recorded above, the net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 03-07-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
