Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/293/2016

K.Sundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Future Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Elveera Ravindran

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 22.08.2016

Date of Reservation      : 01.09.2022

Date of Order               : 13.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.293/2016

TUESDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr. K. Sundaram,

S/o C. P. Krishnaswamy,

Residing at 13- A/7, Sri Lakshmi Krishna Illam,

Third Street,

Abhiramapuram,

Chennai-600 018.                                                            ... Complainant           

 

..Vs..

 

1.Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd,

   Represented by its Managing Director,

   Neelam Dhawan,

   24, Salapuria Arena, Audugodi,

   Hosur Road,

   Bengaluru-560017.

 

2.Future Retail Ltd,

   Represented by their Authorized Signatory,

   E-Zone, Express Avenue Mall,

   Whites Road,

   Royapettah,

   Chennai – 600 014.                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. Elveera Ravindran

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party   : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party to treat the written arguments as orals arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to replace defective laptop and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and physical hardship undergone by the Complainant along with cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

On 03.05.2015 the Complainant purchased a HP Laptop Serial No. CND5072Y59 Model No L2Z65PA/15-R248TU from the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.23,991/-, which amount included the cost of the Operating Software. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued an Invoice No.91550777 dated 03.05.2015 acknowledging the receipt of the sum of Rs.23,991/-. The said product had a warranty period of one year from the date of the purchase. He was facing problem with the Laptop and he brought the same to the notice of the 1^st Opposite Party from time to time and they requested the Complainant to take the laptop to the service center for repairs. This tech savvy advanced world of technology, the necessity of a laptop hardly needs to be described. The insurance sector and his son is pursuing his collegiate education and the need for a laptop was very necessary and in order to run the household and pay bills online, the laptop was purchased in the fond hose that it would be convenient and serve its purpose but it turned out contrary. In view of the wide publicity given by both of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and most specifically the sales man of the 2^nd opposite Party assuring the purchasers of trouble free performance, sturdy headset etc. the Complainant was lured in to purchasing the laptop. The Complainant submits that the laptop was unable to be used for the purpose it was intended, resulting in grave mental agony and physical hardship for the Complainant, not to mention the business loss. In spite of his repeated complaints to the 1^st Opposite Party they miserably failed to redress the grievance. He had suffered gravely owing to the defective laptop purchased by him and on the following dates he had lodged complaints with the 1^st Opposite Party i.e., on 23.11.2015, 06.12.2015, 26.12.2015, 30.01.2016 and 09.04.2016. Each time he had to visit the repair centre and each time the fault would reoccur, or other faults would arise. The ram, motherboard and other components were defective. Even the mother board of the laptop had to be replaced by the 2^nd Opposite Party, but to no avail. The misery still persists and the problems are still existing. Each time he made a complaint  the same would be recorded in the service call report. He has sent several e mails on various dates seeking a replacement of the defective laptop which is in addition to innumerable complaints he made, which has fallen on deaf ears. The gross negligence act of the Opposite Parties sold the instrument and not offering any after sales service is gross deficiency of service and dereliction of duties. Such problem can hardly be expected of a new laptop. He had suffered gravely owing to the defective laptop which had so many problems, which ought not to occur in a new machine. Hence the Opposite Parties are liable for their gross negligence and dereliction of duties. He had purchased the laptop to assist him in his work and to assist his son during his studies and to attend to the household bills and other chores that could be done with the help of the laptop, however due to the defective laptop he and his family members could not pursue anything but in fact were subject to grave mental and physical hardship and strain, which cannot be estimated in terms of money, but for the purpose of this dispute, the Complainant modestly estimates at Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, physical hardship and strain undergone by the Complainant and his family members. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the present defective laptop with a new one, to the satisfaction of the Complainant. He had caused to send a legal notice dated 19.04.2016 to the Opposite Parties for Redressal of the grievances, which was received by them and the first Opposite Party had vide their reply dated 09.05.2016, admitted their lapses, however they had miserably failed to redress the Complainants legitimate grievances. Though the second Opposite Party had received the legal notice, they failed to respond. Hence the Complaint.

 

 

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The present complaint, filed by the Complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the Complainant has approached this Hon'ble Forum by suppressing the material facts. From perusal of the instant complaint, it would be observed that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and with mala fide intent. The Complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations that the laptop in question is defective without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under Section.13 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985 and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a 'consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service being established against this Opposite Party, hence the averments and/or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality. The laptop purchased by the Complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the Complainant had purchased the laptop, after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that all the products manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are marketed only after the prototype of the same is being approved by the appropriate authority. All the products manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the country quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market. It is pertinent to state that the products of the answering Opposite Party are certified by the international standard for quality systems for all the products and related peripheral companies and this international standard specifies requirements for a quality system where an organization needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product meeting customer's satisfaction and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, whenever any customer reports to a service centre for any repairs, the complaints/grievances of the customer are recorded in the job card, which do not imply admission of any defects in the product, but a mere representation of the customer's grievances on the said product. Thereafter standard checks are carried out at the service centre and observation is recorded by the Service Engineer on the job-card. It helps the concerned service centre to provide necessary consultancy/advice regarding the condition of the product to the customer. The service engineer of the service centre, who interfaces with the customer, is adequately trained to provide proper job explanation of the works carried out and even provides tests to the customer at the time of delivery of the product after every service/repairs to the entire satisfaction of the customer. The units as attended by the Opposite Party's service centres fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the products. Hence, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency of service against the answering Opposite Party by the Complainant and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. The warranty benefits provided by the answering Opposite Party on the said laptop are 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. In the case in hand, the subject laptop had standard warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. That on verification of the data base maintained by the answering Opposite Party company based on the serial number of the laptop for the calls/complaints lodged to the Customer Care Centre./authorized of the answering Opposite Party, it is found that the Complainant had reported issues in respect of the laptop to the customer care centre/authorized service centre during different time intervals, that on receipt of the complaint, the service team of the answering Opposite Party had submitted the laptop for diagnosis, and resolved the issues reported by carrying out repair and replacing the required parts as per terms of the warranty, kept under laptop under observation and on confirmation that the laptop is working fine as per specifications had delivered the laptop to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is prima facie unsustainable and therefore the question of granting any relief whatsoever to the Complainant does not arise. It is submitted that the laptop is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components and the working of the same are depends on various factors such as proper electrical supply, proper handling of the system and the 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 whole purpose of taking the warranty by consumer is because the electronic system is always vulnerable to failure due to some or any of the defects in the components. That the laptop in question was reported for issues and the service team of the answering Opposite Party had promptly attended to the issues reported, after diagnosis had resolved the issue by replacing the Hard Disk Drive and Mother Board as per the warranty obligation. That it is only the Complainant's apprehension and expectation for replacement of the laptop along with compensation has failed to agree on the working status of the laptop. There is no known issues, manufacturing defects or technical faults in the laptop. It is further submitted that the answering Opposite Party is ready and willing to diagnose and resolve the issues (if any) in the laptop, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the answering Opposite Party or its customer care centre/authorized service centre and get the issues resolved as per the terms of the warranty. That the answering Opposite Party is not liable for replacement of the laptop or to pay the exorbitant amounts claimed towards compensation without any justification moreover the same is not permissible under the warranty policy of the answering Opposite Party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.     

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5  were marked. The 1^st Opposite Party submitted its Written Version and Proof Affidavit and no documents was marked.

5.     The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served and remained absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased a HP Lap Top Bearing serial No: CND5072Y59 Model No L2z65PA/15-R 248TU for a sum of Rs.23,991/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party vide Invoice No: 91550777 dated 03.05.2013. It is also not in dispute that the subject Lap Top was given for service on repairs to the 1^st Opposite Party service centre.

The disputed facts are that the subject Laptop suffered with the problems and the complaints were lodged with the 1^st Opposite Party on 23.11.2015, 06.12.2015, 26.12.2015, 30.01.2016 and 09.04.2016. Even after services done the fault in the subject laptop reoccurred or other fault arose, even the mother board of the subject laptop was replaced. The problems in the subject laptop persisted and existed inspite of the services done.

The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party in this regard was that the laptop purchased by the complainant is well established in the market and the complainant had purchased the subject laptop after having satisfied with the condition and its performance. Further contended that the standard check are carried out at the service centre and observation is recorded by the service engineer, which helps to advice the condition of the product to the customer. The complaints that has been received from the complainant during different time intervals, the same were submitted by their service team for diagnosis of the subject laptop and resolved the issues reported by carrying out the repair and by replacing the required parts as per the terms of warranty and on confirmation that the subject laptop is working in good condition as per the specification, had delivered the laptop to the complainant. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is unsustainable and the relief sought by the complaint does not arise. Further contended that their service team promptly attended the issues reported by the complainant and after diagnosis, they had replaced the Hard disc Drive and mother board as per the warranty obligation. There were no manufacturing or technical faults in the subject laptop. Further contended they are ready and willing to resolve the issues if any in the laptop and complainant is at liberty to approach their service centre and get the issues resolved as per the terms of the warranty.

On discussion made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on careful perusal of the Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant, it is clear that the subject laptop suffered with problems immediately after 6 months from the date of purchase and as per Exhibit A-2, the service call reports found in page Nos. 2 to 6, the repairs reported was found to be rectified by the 1^st Opposite Party’s service centre. Further the 1^st Opposite Party had responded to the legal notice dated 19.04.2016 sent by the complainant by their reply dated 09.05.2016 and the same were marked as Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit A-5. From the said Exhibits and on careful reading of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the subject laptop of the 1^st Opposite Party with a found hope that the performance of the standard Laptop of the 1^st Opposite Party would not cause any problem on usage, as the purpose of the purchase made by the complainant has to be taken into account though the 1^st Opposite Party had attended the repairs and resolved the issues even by replacing hard disk drive and mother board, which occurred during the warranty period, the issues found to be reoccurred or new issues arose in the subject laptop, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service and caused mental agony to the complainant by visiting the service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party on regular intervals. Hence, we are of the considered view that the 1^st Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service and 2^nd Opposite Party being a dealer is in no way liable or responsible for the defects occurred in the subject laptop and hence the complaint against the 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed. Accordingly, point no 1 is answered as against the 1^st Opposite Party.

Points No 2 and 3.

  As discussed above and decided point No.1 against the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the complainant, along with  cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. And the complainant is not entitled for any office relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed  to pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.

In the result the complaint is allowed.                    

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 13^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	03.05.2015	Tax invoice bearing NO.91550777 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A2	-	Service Call Report (Series)
Ex.A3	19.04.2016	Legal notice sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	-	Acknowledgement card (series)
Ex.A5	09.05.2016	Reply behalf of the 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT