Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/409/2014

M/s.Sundaram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Redington India Ltd(Corporate Office Centre Point Plot No8 & 11Sp) - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

09 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Date of Complaint  : 18.09.2014

                                                                 Date of Order         :04.05.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 409 / 2014

THIS WEDNESDAY  4^th   DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Sundaram Kumar,

New No.8, Old No.25,

Third Avenue,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai 600 090.                                           .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1. The Authorized Signatory, Redington India Limited (Corporate Office Centre Point Plot Nos. 8 & 11 (SP), Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.   2. The Manager, Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., HPSO1 Prestige Palladium, No.120 to 140, Prestige Palladium Bayan – 4th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.                                           .. Opposite parties.		.. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant             :    Party in person.         

For the opposite party-1       :   Exparte 

For the opposite party-2       :   M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 

1.     Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.7400/- together with interest and also to pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint to the complainant. 

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-        

        The complainant contended that he purchased HP PC Slimline Model S5260IN from Precision Galaxy on 31.1.2010 which had warranty upto 31.1.2013.   He paid Rs.7,400/- on 16.10.2012 for extended warranty for further two years extending upto 31.1.2015.  He was issued HP Care Pack certificate for one year only i.e. upto 30.1.2014.    The certificate was not issued for the 2^nd year though payment was accepted.   He was under the hope that the certificate for the 2^nd year would be sent later.   On 11th  March 2014 his system crashed and he approached HP for service they informed that he did not have a valid service contract and when he forwarded AMC invoice he was told by their call centre that Redington who issued a pack was  the authorized service centre of HP.   When he approached the Redington he was told that his service request would not be entertained and the amount collected for 2014-15 would be refunded.    Hence he wrote to HP on 15.3.2014.  Again  on the same day he sent a notice to the opposite parties through email for breach of service contract even then there was no response from the opposite parties.    Hence on 30.5.2014 Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group made a representation  on his complaint to the opposite party, but there was no response again on 17.10.2014 they sent a reminder still there was no response.    Hence the complainant filed the above complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to cease and desist from carrying out the unfair trade practice and to refund the full fee paid towards the maintenance contract for deficiency in service a sum of Rs.7,400/- together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 11.3.2014 to till the date of realization and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

 

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 1^ST opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 1^st opposite party was  set exparte on 20.3.2015.  

Written Version of  2^nd  opposite party is in briefly as follows:

3.     The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party is a company duly incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act 1956.    It is submitted that the product manufactured by them pass through stringent quality checks and test drives before the start of the commercial production.    The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this forum by suppressing the material fact.  The complaint does not fall within the definition of the consumer dispute as there is neither any  deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice.      The relationship existed between them and the 1^st opposite party is on principal to principal basis being the manufacturer of product sells the same to its authorized dealers.   Once it is sold the transaction gets completed.  Therefore there is no privitiy of contract between them and the complainant in respect of the transactions between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.  It is mistake of the 1^st opposite party who has registered the care pack for one year supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not done by 1^st  opposite party.  As such they are not responsible on the warranty support after care pack registered.  The warranty and care pack 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 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.    The complainant alleged that he had availed the care pack warranty for further extension of warranty from 1^st opposite party but it is the mistake of the 1^st opposite party who had registered the care pack for one year it was supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not done by the 1^st opposite party.  As such they are not responsible on the warranty support as per terms and conditions of the care pack warranty.     The Honble Supreme court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company ..Vs.. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and circumstance  in which he has signed the contract.   Hence the complainant is debarred from claiming any compensation.    On 15.4.2014 the complainant wrote to the opposite party putting them on notice for breach of contract and also 30.5.2014 and 17.6.2014 Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group sent a notice to the opposite party is denied since the complainant would have wrote to 1^st opposite party.   The averment of the complainant is that both 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are equally responsible and liable for not issuing the certificate for maintenance for which the opposite party is responsible for the warranty support only after care pack is registered.    But in the instant case the care pack is not registered for the warranty support due to mistake of vendor who has registered for one year which was supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not.  Hence the opposite party cannot be held responsible.   Further without going to the facts the customer care of the opposite party had offered to refund the cost of the care pack amount of Rs.7,400/- which is the actual maintenance contract cost but the complainant refused the same and has filed the complaint for refund of Rs.7,400/- along with compensation.   The opposite party is ready to support to complainant as per warranty obligation but the complainant has denied the same.    The opposite party offers to refund Rs.7,400/- which was paid by the complainant for actual maintenance contract as full and final settlement towards claims of the complainant.   In view of the above averments the opposite party is neither guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  There is no cause of action against the opposite party.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.   Hence the complaint ought to be dismissed against this opposite party. 

 4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12  were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  2^nd Opposite party filed and  no document was marked on the side of the  2^nd opposite party.  

5.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 to 2 : -   

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite  party, proof affidavits filed by the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 filed on the side of complainant  and considered the arguments of the both sides.  

7.     The complainant contended that he purchased HP PC Slimline Model S5360IN from Precision Galaxy on 31.1.2010 which had warranty upto 31.1.2013.   He paid Rs.7,400/- on 16.10.2012 for extended warranty for further two years extending upto 31.1.2015.  He was issued HP Care Pack certificate for one year only i.e. upto 30.1.2014.    The certificate was not issued for the 2^nd year though payment was accepted.   He was under the hope that the certificate for the 2^nd year would be sent later.   On 11th  March 2014 his system crashed and he approached HP for service they informed that he did not have a valid service contract and when he forwarded AMC invoice he was told by their call centre that Redington who issued a pack was  the authorized service centre of HP.   When he approached the Redington he was told that his service request would not be entertained and the amount collected for 2014-15 would be refunded.    Hence he wrote to HP on 15.3.2014.  Again  on the same day he sent a notice to the opposite parties through email for breach of service contract even then there was no response from the opposite parties.    Hence on 30.5.2014 Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group made  a representation  on his complaint to the opposite party, but there was no response again on 17.10.2014 they sent a reminder still there was no response.    Hence the complainant filed the above complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to cease and desist from carrying out the unfair trade practice and to refund the full fee paid towards the maintenance contract for deficiency in service a sum of Rs.7,400/- together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 11.3.2014 to  till the date of realization and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

 

8.     The 2^nd  opposite party resisted the complaint by stating that the relationship existed between them and the 1^st opposite party is on principal to principal basis being the manufacturer of product sells the same to its authorized dealers, Once it is sold the transaction gets completed.  Therefore there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant in respect of the transactions between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.  It is mistake of the 1^st opposite party who has registered the care pack for one year supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not done by 1^st  opposite party.  As such they are not responsible on the warranty support after care pack registered.  The warranty and care pack 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 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.    It is the mistake of the 1^st opposite party who had registered the care pack for one year it was supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not done by the 1^st opposite party.  As such they are not responsible on the warranty support as per terms and conditions of the care pack warranty.     The Honble Supreme court in the case of Bharhi Knitting Company ..Vs.. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and circumstance  in which he has signed the contact.   Hence the complainant is debarred from claiming any compensation.    On 15.4.2014 the complainant wrote to the opposite party putting them on notice for breach of contract and also 30.5.2014 and 17.6.2014 Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group sent a notice to the opposite party is denied since the complainant would have wrote to 1^st opposite party.   The averment of the complainant that both 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are equally responsible and liable for not issuing the certificate for maintenance for which the opposite party is responsible for the warranty support only after care pack is registered.    But in the instant case the care pack is not registered for the warranty support due to mistake of vendor who has registered for one year which was supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not.  Hence the opposite party cannot be held responsible.   Further without going to the facts the customer care of the opposite party had offered to refund the cost of the care pack amount of Rs.7,400/- which is the actual maintenance contract cost but the complainant refused the same and has filed the complaint for refund of Rs.7,400/- along with compensation.   The opposite party is ready to support to complainant as per warranty obligation but the complainant has denied the same.    The opposite party offers to refund Rs.7,400/- which was paid by the complainant for actual maintenance contract as full and final settlement towards claims of the complainant.   In view of the above averments the opposite party is neither guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  There is no cause of action against the opposite party.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.   Hence the complaint ought to be dismissed against this opposite party. 

9.     The Ex.A1 reveals that the complainant had purchased the complaint mentioned HP PC Slimline Model S5360IN from Precision Galaxy on 30.1.2010 which was covered warranty upto 31.1.2013.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7,400/- to the 1^st opposite party towards AMC for next two years i.e. upto 31.1.2015 is also evidenced through Ex.A2.  The payment of Rs.7400/- is not disputed by the opposite parties.    The grievance of the complainant is that when the AMC is in force on 11.3.2014 his system got crashed and he approached the HP for service they informed that he did not have a valid service stating that the 1^st opposite party was answerable for the service since they are the authorized service center whereas the 1^st opposite party denied the service but stated that they would refund the AMC for the period 2014-2015 since they issued care pack certificate only for one year upto 30.1.2014 i.e. Ex.A3..   The complainant sent email to the HP Technical Support for which the 1^st opposite party sent reply stating that due to some technical issue they could not update his 2^nd year care pack so that they would refund is money which is also evidenced through Ex.A7.    Aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties through email for breach of service contract seeking to refund the entire AMC amount of Rs.7,400/- for the lack of professional service and the same is evidenced through Ex.A9  s since there was no response from the opposite parties. the complainant sent a complaint through Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group by emails on 15.4.2014 & 30.5.2014 i.e. Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 which reveals that they had confirmed the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to consider the grievance of the complainant

10.    From the above facts and document Ex.A2 it is clear that the complainant had paid AMC for two years i.e. upto 31.1.2015,  the 2^nd opposite party accepted the amount of Rs.7,400/ i.e. AMC for two years but issued the certificate only for one year and failed to issue the certificate for the 2^nd year and when PC of the complainant was crashed and approached the opposite parties for service it was denied stating that it was not covered under warranty shows the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. If the AMC was meant for only one year as contended by the 2^nd opposite party the AMC for the 2^nd year should not have been accepted.   Even the 2^nd opposite party had admitted in his written version as well as evidenced through proof affidavit that it is the mistake of the 1st opposite party who had registered the care pack for one year supposed to be updated for the additional one year which is not done by the 1^st opposite party.   Whereas the 2^nd opposite party’s contentions that they do not provide remedy/ service fee of cost of the defect occurs after the expiry of warranty period is not acceptable since the complainant had paid for two years but it is not registered is opposite parties fault. Moreover the service certificate is issued in the name of HP Care pack” Service certificate Ex.A3 it shows that the opposite party-2 is responsible for the warrant support.    The opposite party-2  also admitted that they are responsible for the warranty support.  Whereas here the complainant has paid for two years within which his PC was defective.   Hence it is well covered under warranty.   The 2^nd opposite party cannot escape his liability by shifting the burden on 1^st opposite party since amount for AMC is received on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.   Though the amount has been received by the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party being the principal is liable as it was collected on behalf of 2^nd opposite party and also having received the notice sent by the complainant through email ought to have taken action to comply the grievance of the complainant as such the 2^nd opposite party is vicariously liable.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that they had not received notice is not acceptable, since they themselves admitted that they offered for payment after their customer care received complaint.    Further the 2^nd opposite party ought to have rendered proper service to the complaint mentioned TC when the AMC was in force whereas both the opposite parties failed to do so.   The Honble Supreme court judgment held  in the case of Bharti Knitting Company ..Vs.. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 cited by the 2^nd opposite party is not applicable to this case since the mistake committed by the 1st opposite party is admitted by the 2nd opposite party as principal.  Hence the contention of the 2^nd opposite party that they are not liable for the transactions between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party  cannot be acceptable.   Moreover the 2^nd opposite party offered to refund the entire AMC amount of Rs.7,400/- but failed to do so.   Hence both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service.

11.    However since the opposite parties admitted their mistake and offered for refund of the entire AMC amount of Rs.7,400/- prior to filing the complaint the relief claimed by the complainant directing the opposite parties to cease and desist from carrying out the unfair trade practice is not sustainable. 

12.    Moreover since the AMC for the period extending upto 30.1.2013 was exhausted during the date of occurrence of the repair and only the 2^nd AMC was in force the complainant’s relief claiming refund of the total amount of Rs.7,400/- being the AMC for two year is not sustainable.   Whereas the opposite parties ought to have serviced the PC of the complainant during the AMC period since they  failed to do so we are of the considered view that both the opposite parties had committed deficiency of service.    As such both of them are jointly and severally liable.  Since the complainant is being a senior citizen he was put to much hardship and mental agony is also acceptable.  Hence both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and cost of the complaint  to the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost to the complainant  within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount of (Rs.15,000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.   

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4^th  day of  May   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  30.1.2010     - Copy of Computer purchase Invoice.

Ex.A2- 16.11.2012     - Copy of Invoice for service pack for years.

Ex.A3- 7.11.2012      - Copy of HP care pack certificate period upto 30.1.14.

Ex.A4- 11.3.2014      - Copy of HP email acknowledging call for service request.

Ex.A5- 11.3.2014      - Copy of complainant email to HP requesting for immediate

                               Attention in reply to above email.

 

Ex.A6- 12.3.2014      - Copy of complainant email to Redington seeking immediate

                                Attention as advised on phone by HP.

 

Ex.A7- 14.3.2014      - Copy of Redington email refusing to service and offering

                               To return the payment for the second year.

 

Ex.A8- 15.3.2014      - Copy of complainant email to HP giving first notice on

                               Redington refusal.

 

Ex.A9- 15.4.2014      - Copy of complainant email to HP and Redington titled Breach of

                               Contract.

 

Ex.A10- 30.5.2014     - Copy of CAG forum email to HP and Redington.

 

Ex.A11- 17.6.2014     - Copy of CAG forum email reminder to HP and Redington.

 

Ex.A12- 21.3.2013     - Copy of correspondences between complainant and

                               Redington during year 2013 on lack of diligent service.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: -  

 

 .. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.