BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.169 of 2014

Date of Instt. 16.5.2014

Date of Decision :18.11.2014

Harpal Singh aged about 32 years son of Sucha Singh R/o Village Rjapur Bhayan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur-146112.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Niharika Technologies, SCO-51 FF Near Adarsh Palace, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Proprietor.

2. Hewlett-Packard(H.P) Corporate Office, Rewlett-PackardIndia Sales Pvt Ltd, 24, Salarpuria Areana/Adugodi, Hosur Road, Banglore-560 030, through its Managing Director.

3. Mr.Abhinav Sood, Branch Manager, HP Care Service Co Ltd, AFORESERVE.COM.LTD, 3rd Floor Nobel Enclave, Opp Park Plaza Hotel, Ludhiana 141001.

4. Miss V.Nirmala, Customer Relations Case Manager, Hewelett-Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd, 24, SalarpuriaArena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Banglore-560 030.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.RR Neeraj Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Anita Rani Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Karan Kalia Adv., counsel for OP No.2,4.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the permanent resident of the aforementioned address and he has purchased a HP Printer bearing serial number CN21BAQ0QB with model name HP Printer Officejet Pro 8600 on 24.7.2012 amounting to Rs.14243/- from opposite party No.1. After few months of purchase of above said HP printer, it started creating problems as it was not giving the high quality print outs due to some HP Ink or HP print head problems and the complainant lodged a complaint with help desk of HP and service centre of opposite party No.2 replaced the printer on dated 1.11.2012. After few months of replacement of same unit started again creating the problem of print quality, to which again the complainant lodged a complaint with the help desk of HP and service centre of opposite party No.2 again replaced the printer unit on dated 24.12.2012.After few months, complainant bought a care pack from HP authorized dealer online dated 12..2013 to extend the warranty of the HP printer bearing replacement serial number CN29NBS068 for three years more. At the time of buying HP care pack, opposite party No.2 had given an assurance to complainant that they will cover each and every part of HP printer for which warranty is extended. It is always claimed by opposite party No.2 that customer should not use any refilled ink cartridges in their HP printer products as, it will void the standard warranty and as well extended warranty of the HP printer products. As, it is always advised to use HP genuine ink cartridges, thereby, to avoid that complainant has always been using HP genuine ink cartridges in his HP printer bearing replacement serial number CN29NBS068. After previously installed HP genuine ink cartridges have exhausted as, already aforementioned complainant had bought a new set of HP genuine ink cartridges from HP authorized dealer bill dated 28.12.2013 and have installed a new set of cartridges in his HP printer bearing serial number CN29NBS068 found that while printing that printer head was not dispensing the yellow ink, same was reported to the HP complaint desk again with complaint No.3000702531 and 3001559766 but opposite party No.2 refused to provide the complainant with the service for the HP product because now the said HP printer bearing serial number CN29NBS068 is under extended warranty and opposite party No.2 considered the printer head as, consumable part as per their extended warranty terms and condition to which, the complainant was not told prior before the warranty extension of his HP printer bearing serial number CN29NBS068. Complainant had purchased the above said product for his children for their study as the one son of the complainant is studying in M.Sc Biotechnology and the daughter of the complainant is also preparing for entrance exams of Ph.D. Therefore, looking the need of his children complainant bought a new printer head for his HP printer from WWW.EBAY.COM worth Rs.7830/- in order to maintain the continuity of study of his children. After receiving the ordered printer head from WWW.EBAY.COM the complainant installed it in his HP printer and used same HP genuine ink cartridges that were purchased vide invoice dated 31.12.2013 which unfortunately, caused the same blockage of yellow ink again in new HP printer head. Thus, now here it was confirmed as occurrence of same problem with new HP print head is due to the faulty HP genuine ink cartridges. After, same was reported to HP help desk by number of emails to replace the HP printer head under extended warranty and to which Miss.V.Nirmala opposite party No.4 reverted to complainant that to provide the HP print head and HP genuine ink cartridges with concerned invoice. The same was emailed to V.Nirmala at her mail ID V.nirmala@hp.com. After that, V.Nirmala reported complainant via telephonic conversation that provide the HP printer head and HP genuine ink cartridges to Mr.Abhinav Sood to just validate the products are original one or not. The same was collected by Mr.Abhinav Sood via providing the complainant a receipt of carrying the products for validation. After that V.Nirmala reported complainant that HP genuine ink cartridges are being replaced by the HP whereas, the HP printer head is not subject to replacement because it is a consumable part thereby, it can not be replaced under the extended warranty. The complainant has not single time requested the opposite party No.2, 3,4, to replace the HP genuine ink cartridges. As, basic demand of complainant was to replace the HP printer head. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the above said printer with fresh warranty. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1,2,4 appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 admitted that complainant has purchased the said unit. It denied other averments of the complainant for want of knowledge. Further, it pleaded that it does not deal in the manufacturer warranty policy matter and it is only sale partner of opposite party No.2 and not service provider of it and warranty services provide directly by HP service centre. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 and 4 pleaded that opposite party No.4 is an employee of opposite party No.2. They further pleaded that the warranty benefits provided by answering opposite party on the said printer is for a defined period. The warranty is explicit and the terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms that the warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the warranty ends date has been reached. The opposite party stated that it does not provide any service/remedy available under the warranty free of cost, if the complaint is 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, the opposite party is not liable to provide any service to the customer, free of cost, if the customer communicates such fault to the opposite party after the expiry of the warranty period. In the case in hand, the subject printer had warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and the complainant has purchased care pack for two years, currently the printer is under extended warranty. That the answering opposite party submits that the complainant had reported issues in respect of the cartridge of the printer which was attended promptly, that the cartridge was replaced as the same was within the replacement criteria as per the terms and conditions of the warranty but the printer head could not be replaced as the complainant had purchased the printer head from non authorized channel i.e Ebay, hence the same got rejected for printer head replacement, moreover the printer head considered as a consumable, as such the same does not cover under extended warranty norms as such the replacement of the printer head was rejected by informing the same to the complainant that he has purchased the printer head and it can not be replaced as per warranty norms/which is not permissible under the terms of the warranty policy of the answering opposite party. The complainant has purchased the printer on 24.7.2012 and has used the printer till the issues were reported, which fact proves that the printer had no manufacturing defects as if there was manufacturing defects the printer would have not worked properly from the date of its purchase, the issues reported thereafter in respect of the printer in question for the issues reported are required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive wear and tear and aging of the said printer. That the answering opposite party further submit that, there are no known issues or manufacturing defects in the printer as such even now the answering opposite party is ready and willing to diagnose the printer for the issues and offer to repair/service/resolve the issues(if any) in the printer as per the terms of the warranty. The complainant had brought a care pack from HP authorized dealer as online dated 12.7.2013 to extend the warranty of the HP printer bearing replacement serial No.CN29NBS068 for 3 years more. The complainant was clearly informed that the consumables will not be covered for replacement under extended warranty. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C11 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A/2 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The complainant purchased HP printer vide retail invoice dated 24.7.2012 Ex.C1 for Rs.14,243/-. The dispute is regarding the printer head. In para 11 of the complaint, the complainant pleaded that basic demand of complainant was to replace the HP printer head. Complainant has purchased HP care pack for two years vide retail invoice Ex.C4 for Rs.3617/-. According to the complainant his printer head was defective and he approached opposite parties for replacement of the same but without any result. In its written reply, opposite parties No.2 and 4 have pleaded that complainant had purchased the printer head from non authorized channel i.e Ebay, moreover the printer head is considered as a consumable as such the same does not cover under extended warranty norms as such the replacement of the printer head was rejected. According to the complainant, he purchased new printer head of HP from WWW.EBAY.COM worth Rs.7830/-. Ex.C-8 is document regarding purchase of the printer head. In it address of one Mr.Kirty Sangha and against dispatch/delivery information Mr.Kirty Sangha C/o Mr.Gulzar Chand Sharan Premgarh, Vishkarma Chowk, Hoshiarpur, Punjab is mentioned. So as per Ex.C-8 the printer head was purchased by one Kirty Sangha and was also dispatched to him. In the present complaint, the complainant is Harpal Singh . So from Ex.C-8 it is not clear if the complainant has purchased the printer. Moreover he has purchased the printer online and not from authorized dealer. Service care report Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 are also in the name of Kirty Singh Sangha. Complainant has purchased the care pack online on 12.7.2013 to extend warranty of the HP printer. Thereafter he purchased the printer head online. So warranty of the original printer head ends with the purchase of new printer head. The complainant has not lead any reliable evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the printer itself. In para 8 of the complaint, it is pleaded that now here it was confirmed as occurrence of same problem with new HP print head is due to the faulty HP genuine ink cartridges. On the one hand he is pleading that the defect is due to faulty HP genuine ink cartridges. On the other hand he is pleading that basic demand of the complainant was to replace the HP printer head but he has prayed for replacement of the printer itself with fresh warranty. It is in the affidavit Ex.OP/A/2 of Sriram Mohan of opposite party No.2 that the complainant had reported issues in respect of the cartridge of the printer which was attended promptly, that the cartridge was replaced as the same was within the replacement criteria as per the terms and conditions of the warranty but the printer head could not be replaced as the complainant had purchased the printer head from non authorized channel i.e Ebay, hence the same got rejected for print head replacement, moreover the printer head is considered as a consumable, as such the same is not covered under extended warranty. On the other hand, the complainant has not produced on record the terms and conditions of the care pack to show that printer head was not consumable item and was covered under warranty. Still further as already mentioned above, he had purchased the printer head from un-authorized channel. So the opposite parties are not liable to provide any service under the extended warranty. The complainant has not lead cogent and reliable evidence to prove his case.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

18.11.2014 Member President