DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/170/2022
Date of Institution: 04.07.2022
Date of Decision: 14.08.2024
Yadwinder Singh Dhaliwal aged about 16-1/2 years minor son of Sh. Makhan Singh Dhaliwal resident of House No. B-XII/348, Pacca College Road, Near Under-bridge, Ward No. 16, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala through its natural guardian his father Sh. Makhan Singh Dhaliwal son of Beant Singh resident of Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. Multiple Workstation, B-XI/40, Near Dr. Vijay Hospital, K.C. Road, Barnala-148101, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. HP Computing and Printing System India Private Limited, GF Global C Business OPS Pvt. Ltd. No. 66/2, Ward No. 83, Bagmanc Tech Park, 7th Floor Awins “Embassy Prime” CV Raman Nagar Pincode- 560093, Banglore, Karnataka through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: Sh. Jatinder Kumar Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. K.R. Goel Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. J.R. Garg counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Multiple Workstation, B-XI/40, Near Dr. Vijay Hospital, K.C. Road, Barnala-148101, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant alongwith his father visited the opposite party No. 1 and allured the complainant of the best quality of the products sold by opposite party No. 1 manufactured by opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that on the assurance of opposite party No. 1 the complainant purchased one Laptop for his studies, make HP Laptop 15S-DU3047 TX bearing Sr. No. CND1088JGX for an amount of Rs. 63,000/- from opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 984 dated 22.6.2021. It is further alleged that after the use some months, the Laptop was giving some problem of heating and father of the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 told that the said Laptop is not defected and this much heat is there in the Laptop. Thereafter, the complainant noticed that due to the said heating of laptop the hinges of the laptop started damaging and again the father of complainant complained to opposite party No. 1 for this and asked for the resolution of the same or to arrange to replace the said laptop with a new one but opposite party No. 1 lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. As such, the father of complainant called the customer care of the opposite party No. 2 bearing no. 1800 258 7170 on 18.04.2022 at and Case No. 5083933652 was created but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed and the case of the complainant was closed. It is further alleged that the complainant alongwith his father made many visits to opposite party No. 1 and made various requests to opposite parties for the redressal of his grievance but to no effect. It is further alleged that prior to this complaint, the complaint with respect to the said laptop was filed by the father of the complainant as the complainant is a minor but the same was dismissed as withdrawn from the Commission vide order dated 28.06.2022. Due to the above said act of the opposite parties the complainant suffered Physical Pain, Mental Agony, Financial Loss and Inconvenience. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace said Laptop with new one or in alternative to refund Rs. 63,000/- to the complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written reply. It is alleged that present complaint is false and frivolous. It is further alleged that complainant came to the shop of opposite party No. 1 at once and the said laptop was diagnosed by our center and told the complainant that the said laptop is not defected which is still in proper working, so it cannot be replaced. All other averments are denied by the opposite party No 1 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply by taking preliminary objections on the ground that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Commission by suppressing the material facts. 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 fault/manufacturing 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 etc.
5. On merits, it is submitted that on 22.06.2021 complainant purchased HP 15S-DU3047 TX serial no CND1088JGX from opposite party no 1 for Rs 63,000/- vide invoice No 984 with one year Warrantee are matters on record. It is further submitted that the complainant has reported the issues to opposite party No l, who is an authorized dealer of the answering opposite party authorized to sell the products and has no authority to either service or repair/replace the parts of the products and the answering opposite party is neither responsible nor liable for the acts and omissions of the opposite party No 1. It is further alleged that the company has an efficient Complaint Redressal Department and Customer Care Centres with toll free numbers and on verifying customer care data base, based on serial number of the laptop for the call/complaint/s lodged to Customer Care Centre/authorized service centre of the answering opposite party, it is found that, 7 months after purchase, on 10.01.2022 complainant had logged the first case to the customer care centre of answering opposite party vide case id no 5078643986 for Display flickering/lines on display, in response the service team of the answering opposite party offered to resolve the issue but the complainant informed the team that he will visit service centre, hence no repair could be arranged. Subsequently, on 18.04.2022, complainant had lodged another complaint vide case id no 5083933652 for Hinges issue, on receipt of the complaint, the service team of the answering opposite party attended to the complaint promptly, subjected the laptop for diagnosis, inspection, learnt that, the issue reported was caused due to physical not covered under the HP standard warranty, repair/service was not possible as per the answering opposite party, hence the service team of the answering opposite party educated the complainant with regard to the terms and conditions of the warranty and offered to repair the reported issues on chargeable basis as per the warranty obligation but the complainant was resolutions repair/replacement of the parts free of costs. It is further alleged that HP is not responsible for damage that occurs as a result of your failure to follow the instructions intended for the HP hardware product. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant on 24.4.2023 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder.
7. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex. C-1, copy of invoice No. 984 dated 22.6.202 as Ex. C-2, copy of e-mails as Ex. C-3 to C-5 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.O.P1/1 and closed the evidence.
9. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence authorization letter Ex.O.P2/1, affidavit of Girish S Ex.O.P2/2 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased one Laptop for his studies from the opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 984 dated 22.6.2021 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 63,000/-. The copy of the bill is Ex.C-2. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that after some months the said Laptop was giving some problem of heating, as such the complainant alongwith his father visited the opposite party No. 1 and he told that the said Laptop is not defected. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that due to heating of laptop the hinges of the said laptop started damaging and again the complainant complained to opposite party No. 1 for this and the complainant and his father called the customer care of opposite party No. 2 and case No. 5083933652 was created but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed and the case was closed. The complainant and his father again called the customer care on 18.4.2022 and case No. 5083933652 was created but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that neither the defect of the laptop was removed nor the laptop was replaced with new one.
12. It is admitted fact by the opposite parties that the complainant had purchased the alleged laptop and the opposite party No. 1 further admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 with the defective laptop. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 argued that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 after 7 months of purchase on 10.1.2022 and complainant has lodged the first case to the customer care centre of opposite party No. 2 vide case id No. 5078643986 for Display flickering/lines on display and the opposite party No. 2 offered to resolve the issue but the complainant informed the team that he will visit service centre, so no repair could be arranged. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 further argued that on 18.4.2022 the complainant lodged another complaint vide case id No. 5083933652 for hinges issue and the service team of the opposite party No. 2 attended the complaint promptly and found that the issue reported was caused due to physical damage not covered under the HP standard warranty. The opposite party No. 2 offered to repair the reported issues on chargeable basis as per the warranty obligation but the complainant was resolutions repair/replacement of the parts free of costs. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. We have gone through the entire facts and evidence produced by both the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased the said laptop. The complainant has produced the document Ex.C-4 vide which they have registered their complaint and it is clearly mentioned in the said document that the complainant himself denied to get repaired the laptop in question, therefore the case was closed. The complainant also produced the document Ex.C-3 in which the complainant mentioned the complaint hinges issues. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the said laptop. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 also produced the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case of K L Arora Vs Groovy Communications (2002) 3 CPF 92 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that without expert report the manufacturing defect cannot be determined. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 further produced the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura in a matter titled as Rahul Banik Vs Dell India Pvt. Ltd & Others on 20 July, 2016 and the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in a matter titled as Alok Kumar Roy Vs Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. on 3 April, 2012 vide which the similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble State Commission of Tripura and Maharashtra. The complainant failed to produce any expert evidence despite ample opportunities to tender evidence and onus to prove manufacturing defect is lying upon complainant. The opposite parties specifically mentioned that defect occurred due to physical damage.
14. From the above said facts, circumstances and evidence, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same is dismissed with no cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
14th Day of August, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
