DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.250 of 2017
Date of institution: 28.03.2017 Date of decision : 09.07.2019
Paras Nath son of Ramu Pankaj resident of House No.1863, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, U.T. Chandigarh
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. HP India Corporate Office, Address 24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Hosur Road, Bengaluru/Bangalore 560017, Karnataka, India through its authorised person/ agent/partner/owner.
2. Authorised person/partner/owner/agent of M/s. HP India Corporate Office, Address 24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Hosur Road, Bengaluru/Bangalore 560017, Karnataka, India
3. M/s. H.P. Laptop Services Center SCO No.146-147, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its representative.
4. M/s. Ashok Enterprises, Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar, Mohali (PB) through its representative.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: None for complainant.
Shri Tapish Gupta, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 ex-parte.
Shri R.M. Dutta, counsel for OP No.4
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased laptop HP 15 AC116TX for his son, who is pursuing BCA course, for total sale consideration of Rs.46,000/- on 12.04.2016 from OP No.4 by paying Rs.32,000/- as down payment. Balance amount was to be paid in 8 equal installments of Rs.1,425/- each. Besides Rs.1,400/- as processing fee for loan amount was charged from complainant. Bill of Rs.46,000/- for the said laptop was issued. On the same day son of complainant noticed as if MRP mentioned on laptop is Rs.43,216/-. It is claimed that OP No.4 overcharged about Rs.2,500/- from complainant. On contact to OP No.4, he refused to pay back over charged amount by claiming that he has not charged anything above MRP. Complainant being less educated felt himself to be cheated. Laptop was working fine, when used by son of complainant. However, one day son of complainant disclosed as if the laptop is not working as per his requirements because there is regular wi-fi problem and screen of the laptop goes blank automatically, resulting in disappearance of stored material. Complainant took the laptop to OP No.3 for repair, who resolved problem and returned back the laptop after few days. Job sheet in this respect was prepared. Son of the complainant again faced same problem after few days and then the laptop was taken to OP No.3, who returned back the same to complainant after repair, but after few days. On one occasion son of complainant was to take part in a seminar in his college for exhibiting representation through this laptop, but laptop gave same problem again due to which son of complainant has to borrow laptop from his friend for displaying the representation and for saving himself from humiliation. Though assurances were given by OP No.3 that laptop will not give problems again, but in fact the problems have been erupting. It is claimed that OP No. 3 arbitrarily and unethically harassed complainant by not replacing the laptop, despite the fact that same was within warranty period. OP No.4 even alleged to have adopted unfair trade practice by overcharging price and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of price of laptop of Rs.46,000/- alongwith compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs.1.00 lakh as well as litigation expenses of Rs.31,000/-. Refund of overcharged amount of Rs.2,500/- also sought alongwith interest on the above said amounts @ 15% per annum.
2. In joint reply submitted by OP No.1 and 2 it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint filed for abusing process of law by suppressing material facts; consumer dispute does not exist because neither there is any deficiency in service on part of answering OPs and nor any unfair trade practice adopted by them; complaint is based on baseless, vague and malafide allegations. Answering OPs are globally renowned manufacturer of various types of laptops, printers etc. Products manufactured by answering OPs pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before start of commercial production. Products manufactured and marketed by answering OPs are approved by appropriate authority which is the highest body to certify IT products. Standard checks are carried out at the service centers and the observations are recorded by service engineers qua satisfication in the job cards. Concerned service center provides necessary consultancy/advice regarding condition of the product to the customers. So units manufactured by answering OPs are duly attended through service centers, as per terms and conditions of the warranty, assurances and specifications. Warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the warranty ends date has been reached. Standard warranty provided for one year from the date of purchase. Laptop is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and working of same depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of system and of installed software. Mishandling of system or installation of pirated software will hamper proper working of the system. So if any component is found defective, then change of same or repair of the same would solve entire issue faced by the computer/laptop. Electronic system is always vulnerable to failure due to some or any of the defects in the components. On reporting of issues in the laptop in question, service team of answering OPs properly attended to the reported issues and after diagnosis, same were resolved by way of replacing wi-fi card as per warranty obligations. There were no known issues, manufacturing defects or technical faults in the laptop. These OPs expressed readiness and willingness to diagnose and resolve the issues, if any, in the laptop. Complainant is at liberty to approach answering OPs or its customer care centers for getting the issues resolved as per terms and conditions of warranty. However, answering OPs not liable for refund of cost of laptop or of interest or any other claimed amount. As answering OPs have been prompt and swift in attending alleged grievances reported by complainant, and as such prayer made for replacement of laptop alleged to be unsustainable. It is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act because OP has no branch office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and nor they are carrying on business in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Matter regarding purchase of laptop alleged to be matter of record. OPs claim to have learnt as if complainant reported issues in the laptop during different time intervals and those issues were resolved by the concerned service engineers by diagnosing the issues. On 06.07.2016, service team replaced the Wi-Fi card and resolved the issues as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The laptop was kept for observation and thereafter it was found as if the same was working fine as per specifications. However, complainant refused to agree on working status of the laptop by insisting for replacement of the entire laptop. Complainant was explained that laptop does not qualify for replacement as per terms of the warranty. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the same.
3. In separate reply filed by OP No.4, it is claimed that complaint has been filed for cheating and committing fraud by way of twisting facts and figures. No legal notice was ever served on OP No.4. Bill is of date 12.04.2016 as per averment of the complainant, but complaint filed in 2017 after one year by introducing afterthought version. It is claimed through this reply as if complainant is a big manipulator because he after purchasing laptop for a sum of Rs.43,216/- only, would not have agreed to pay Rs.46,000/-. It is claimed that OP No.4 under no circumstance could charge more than MRP because of its being dealer of repute of HP India and other companies. Version of the complainant that he paid sum of Rs.32,000/- as down payment including Rs.1,400/- as processing fee for loan, but Rs.1,425/- each through 8 EMIs alleged to be false because total of these amount comes to Rs.43,400/-, but complainant have manipulated bill of amount of Rs.46,000/-. So complainant should explain as to how and to whom he paid balance amount of Rs.2,500/- as alleged by him. It is claimed that complainant might have procured bill of Rs.46,000/- instead of MRP of Rs.43,216/-. Complainant wants to enrich himself at the cost of OP No.4 by trying to misuse the process of law and as such prayer made for dismissal of the complaint, more so when complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.
3. OP No.3 is ex-parte in this case.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Nirmala Veera Raghava, authorised signatory and thereafter closed evidence. Counsel for OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-4/1 of Taranjit Raheja, Proprietor and thereafter closed evidence.
5. Written arguments submitted by OP No.4 only. Oral arguments of appearing counsel for parties heard and records gone through.
6. Though complainant claims to have paid Rs.46,000/- through invoice Ex.C-1, but same fact is not made out, if entire contents of complaint and supporting affidavit taken into consideration. It is so because in para No.3 of complaint and supporting affidavit, it is mentioned as if complainant paid total sum of Rs.46,000/- on 12.04.2016 for which amount bill Ex.C-1 was issued, but if total of down payment amount of Rs.32,000/- (mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint) along with amount of 8 equal monthly installments of Rs.1,425/- each taken into consideration, then the same worked out to Rs.32,000/- plus Rs.11,400/- = Rs.43,400/-. Mention of down payment of Rs.32,000/- and 8 EMIs of Rs.1,425/- each has been made in Ex.C-1 along with processing fee of Rs.1,400/-. If amount of Rs.1,400/- paid as processing fee for loan also taken into consideration, then total paid amount worked out as Rs.44,800/- If Rs.44,800/- only paid by complainant, then how bill Ex.C-1 of Rs.46,000/- issued , qua that no explanation coming forth on record and as such submission advanced by counsel for OP No.4 through written and oral arguments has force that complainant unable to prove that actually he paid Rs.46,000/- to OP No.4. Rather if details of paid advance amount and of EMIs and of processing fee taken into consideration, as aforesaid, then it was for complainant to prove as to whom balance payment has been made. Explanation in that respect is not offered and as such reliance on bill Ex.C-1 cannot be placed, more so when it is vehemently contended by counsel for the OP No.4 that this bill Ex.C-1 is forged document obtained by complainant subsequently in connivance with someone.
7. Certainly contents of Ex.C-2 shows as if warranty of product was to expire on 11.04.2017, because the same was to start on 12.04.2016 the date of purchase. During this warranty period, laptop was taken to service centre on 20.05.2016 as revealed from contents of Ex C-4. After retaining it for 7 days for observing performance, the laptop was found working properly. So, pleas taken by OP Nos.1 and 2 are correct that during warranty period replacement of WI-FI card was done for rendering the laptop in proper working condition. This laptop was returned to the complainant on 27.05.2016 is a fact borne from contents of Ex.C-4 itself. Even contents of Ex.C-5 establishes that laptop was received from complainant for diagnosing the problem at the service centre and thereafter it was returned to complainant on 30.05.2016 after obtaining his signatures. No note of dissatificaiton recorded on Ex.C-5 and as such certainly laptop was returned to the complainant on 30.05.2016 itself after resolving WI-FI issue as disclosed by Ex. C-4 and Ex.C-5 each. Even in job sheet Ex.C-6 it was found as if Wi-Fi was not working. Job sheet Ex.C-7 establishes that Wi-Fi issue again reported and thereafter the concerned engineer Sandeep Kumar observed the laptop for 30 minutes and found as if the laptop was working fine. This laptop was returned through job sheet Ex.C-6 to complainant on 15.06.2016. Comments of customer on job sheet Ex.C-7 are to the effect that laptop is working fine now and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 and 2 has force that problem of laptop was duly resolved as and when reported by complainant to service centre of OP No.1 and 2. Being so, it has to be held that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question, more so when report of the expert is not at all produced for showing any manufacturing defect in the laptop.
8. Ex.C-8 is no due certificate produced by complainant for showing as if loan was contracted from Capital First Limited for purchase of laptop in question. Wi-fi card was replaced and as such virtually due services rendered by OP No.1 and 2 through its service centre at all the times as and when issues reported. Even OP No.1 and 2 through their written reply claimed that they are ready to resolve the issues even at present as per terms and conditions of the warranty. However, complainant has not reported any issue after receipt of laptop on 15.06.2016 trough Ex.C-7 and as such it is obvious that this complaint filed on 28.03.2017 without any basis and without proof of actual fault in the laptop in question. Being so, complaint certainly is misconceived, more so when deficiency in service on part of OPs not established and there is nothing on the record to show that excess amount than MRP of Rs.43,216/- mentioned in Ex.C-3 has been charged by OP No.4. As present is not a case of deficiency in service or of adoption of unfair trade practice by OPs in any way and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
09.07.2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
