DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 213 of 2014
Date of filing: 31.10.2014 Date of disposal: 15.10.2015
Complainant: Bivas Hazra, C/o. Manik Hazra, Baburbag, Kalitala (Near Adibasi Hostel), Burdwan, PO: Rajbati – 713 104.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Proprietor, M/s. I. T. Campus, 45/1, Khalui Bill Math, First Lane (Atta Chaki Galli), Near Omkarnath Ashram, Bardhaman, W.B. – 713 101.
2. A.S.P. Executive (Burdwan Division), M/s. HCL Technologies Kolkata Centre, 14th Floor, Infinity Building, Tower-II, Block-GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091, West Bengal.
3. Managing Director & CEO, M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (Corporate Office), E-4,5&6, Sector 11, NOIDA – 201 301, UP, India.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sumit Roy.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: None
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2&3: Ld. Advocate, Lokenath Dey.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not take any step either to replace or repair the defective laptop purchased by him from the OP-1.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one HCL ME Laptop bearing Model No. AE1V2354-I, Serial No. 6111AE891458 on 16.7.2011 with one year basic warranty and two year additional extended warranty period i.e. from 16.7.2011 to 15.7.2012 & 16.7.2012 to 16.7.2014. On 2nd week of
April 2014 he found that the said laptop was not starting. On 14.4.2014 he lodged a complaint before HCL through toll free number and the said complaint was docket as 8504387553. Accordingly he handed over the laptop to the OP-1 being the HCL’s authorized service centre on 18.4.2014. Service Engineer of OP-1 identified the problem and told him that the mother board of the said laptop got dead and needed to be replaced. Since then he did not receive any update from their end. He again contacted with the HCL through its toll free number on 26.5.2014 and lodged a further complaint mentioning all details and got another complaint number 8504566179. Thereafter he contacted on several occasions with the Op-1 as well as the OP-3, but no fruitful result has come out apart from some fake assurance. In the meantime after 16.7.2014 warranty period of the said laptop was over and he intimated the same over telephone to all concerned persons of the OP-1 and he was advised to sent a mail to Mr. Satyajit Laha, concerned person of HCL Technologies, Kolkata centre for extension of warranty period and accordingly he sent a mail on 28.7.2014 praying for extension of warranty period to facilitate repairing work of the said laptop without imposing any financial burden on him. But the complainant had received only another complaint number through SMS in his mobile. Ultimately neither the warranty period has so far been extended nor has replacement of mother board of the said laptop been done by the authority. However, on second week of August 2014 the complainant received one call from OP-1 who asked him to come at their office and immediately he visited their office and he was handed over the said laptop for trial run and he was told that if I got satisfaction then they would close the complaint. But very next date of the said return he found same problem in the laptop. Having no other alternative he further handed over his laptop to the Op-1 on 18.8.2014, but till then he did not receive any fruitful result from its end and in this way he has been harassed with the action of the Ops during seven months. Accordingly, finding no other alternative he has prayed before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint against the Ops to refund the cost of the laptop for Rs. 22,500=00 along with interest @10% per annum, Rs. 10,000=00 towards the Cyber Café bill and private laptop bill which he used for his personal as well as official work at home due to absence of the said laptop, Rs. 25,000=00 towards compensation due to physical strain and mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 1,000=00 as litigation cost.
This complaint have been contested by OP-2&3 by filing conjoint written version contending that this ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because neither there is any deficiency in service on the parts of these Ops nor the questioned laptop is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant did not disclose any cause of action against these Ops and for this reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed against these Ops. The facts as stated in the complaint demonstrate that the Ops have rendered with service to the complainant promptly and readily without any delay and complainant has failed to show that the questioned laptop suffers from any manufacturing defect and the same is beyond repair. These Ops being a company duly incorporated under Companies Act having registered office in New Delhi from where it is carrying business of manufacturing and selling of computers, laptops, tablets and accessories etc. amongst others there are some warranty terms and conditions in respect of laptop and the same are mentioned below:
- HCL provides only corrective maintenance service and replacement of defective parts of the product for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase through its HCL touch service centers in India.
- In case of any malfunction/defect in the product covered under the warranty, the products need to be brought to the HCL touch service centre for repair.
- Cost of bringing and collecting the product at HCL touch service centers shall be borne by the customer.
- HCL reserve the right to dispose of the product at the risk and cost of the customer at its own sole discretion, without incurring any liabilities whatsoever in case, customers do not take delivery within 30 days from the date intimated to the customer for collecting the product after the warranty repair.
- Original warranty card and/or proof of purchase should be produced at the time of approaching the HCL touch service centre to avail of warranty. HCL reserves the right to refuse the warranty card and/or proof of purchase is not produced.
The Ops have further submitted that the complainant purchased the laptop on 16.7.2011 for a sum of Rs. 22,500=00 and the same was carrying a warranty of one year which was further extended for two years w.e.f. 16.7.2012 to 16.7.2014. The extension warranty period includes repair of any technical failure, replacement of spare parts and excludes ODD, Battery adaptor and cosmetic parts. Admittedly the complainant enjoyed the said laptop without defect or interferes of any nature till April 2014 i.e. for about three years. The Ops received a complaint on 18.4.2014 from the complainant wherein complaint lodged in respect of dead mother board. The Ops repaired the said laptop but again the complainant approached with the same complaint regarding mother board on 18.8.2014. It is sated that the warranty expired on 16.7.2014 and the same was not further extended. Thus the complainant cannot ask to repair the same under warranty. According to the Ops it is pertinent to mention that extension of warranty is a matter of contract and the complainant thus cannot ask as a matter of right. As the complainant enjoyed the laptop till April 2014 since its purchase, the question of refund of price of the laptop does not arise and moreover, the same was not under warranty period and warranty period was not extended. So the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under the warranty clause. According to the Ops as there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their behalf the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
As the petition of complaint was not on affidavit later the complainant filed an affidavit on non–judicial stamp paper for Rs. 10=00. The complainant has filed affidavit along with several documents in support of his contention. The OP-3 has also filed evidence on affidavit. The complainant has filed separate documents by way of ‘firisti’. Inspite of receipt of valid service from this ld. Forum the OP-1 did not turn up to contest this complaint and for this reason this complaint has been taken for hearing ex parte against the Op-1. On the date of final hearing none was present on behalf of OP-2&3. We took up the hearing from the ld. Counsel for the complainant and take cognizance of the written version filed by the OP-2&3 and evidence by the OP-3.
We have carefully perused the pleadings of the complainant, rebuttal case of the OP-2&3, evidences filed by the complainant and the OP-3 along with several documents mostly filed by the complainant in support of his contention and heard argument from the ld. Counsel for the complainant as the OP-2&3 were absent on the date of final hearing. It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant purchased one HCL ME Laptop on 16.7.2011, the cost of the said laptop was for Rs. 22,500=00, during purchase one year basic warranty given i.e. from 16.7.2011 to 15.7.2012, thereafter extended warranty was also given additionally for two years which covered the period from 16.7.2012 to 16.7.2014, during extended warranty some problem regarding starting of the laptop cropped up on the 2nd week of April 2014, complaint lodged with the HCL Company, the laptop was handed over to the OP-1 on 18.4.2014, the problem was identified by the Op-1 and it was told by the OP-1 that the mother board of the said laptop became dead and needed to be replaced. Thereafter several correspondences were made on behalf of the complainant; no fruitful result has been yielded. The Ops did not bother to take any positive step either to repair the said problem or to replace the same with a new one. Further admitted fact is that while the said laptop was in the custody of the OP-1 the extended warranty period had been lapsed. The allegation of the complainant is that though the OP-1 had handed over the said laptop him on 18.8.2014 stating that the said problem was repaired, but on the self-same date the complainant found that same problem occurred and for this reason the laptop was further handed over to the OP-1 for its necessary repairing but till filing of this complaint no correspondences has been made with the complainant and the laptop is lying under the custody of the OP-1 without being repaired/replaced. For redressal of such grievance this complaint is filed by him praying for certain reliefs.
The rebuttal case of the OP-2&3 is that the questioned laptop did not suffer its manufacturing defect and for this reason it is not beyond repairable. Further case of the said Ops is that during purchase warranty was given to the complainant wherein there are certain terms and conditions. The Ops have also admitted that after expiry of the first warranty period as given during its purchase; later extended warranty was also given to him for additional two years. But as the said extended warranty had also been expired, now the complainant cannot get any benefit from the said warranty because the extension of warranty is a matter of contract, not a matter of right. According to the said Ops as there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice from their end the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
From the documents as filed by the complainant it is seen by us that the complainant had handed over the questioned laptop to the OP-1 on 18.4.2014 due to defectiveness in its mother board and other problems also cropped up. The Service Engineer of the OP-1 told the complainant that the mother board needed to be replaced as the said became dead. The documents reveal that since then the complainant made several written correspondences with the OP-1 for necessary repairing but the OP-1 kept itself silent and did not take any step either to return the laptop to the complainant or repair the same or replace whatever it may be. It was within the knowledge of the Op-1 that the extended warranty will be expired on 16.7.2014. In our opinion with a view to cross the said period the OP-1 kept the said laptop under its custody with malafide intention without repairing the same. As on 16.7.2014 the extended warranty period was over, then having no alternative the complainant wanted to know the present status of the said complaint from the concerned persons of the OP-1. At that point of time the complainant was advised to send a mail to the concerned person of the OP-2 for extension of the warranty period and accordingly complainant did the same, but to no effect. The OP-2 did not take any step either to extend the warranty period or to replace the defective mother board of the questioned laptop. Surprisingly on the second week of August 2014 the complainant received a phone call from the OP-1 and when he went at the OP-1, the office of the OP-1 handed over him the said laptop for trial run. But on the self-same day the complainant found that the same problem occurred and without any delay the complainant had to run before the OP-1 stating the said problem and accordingly handed over the said laptop further to the OP-1 on 18.4.2014. The document reveals that since then the laptop is lying under the custody of the OP-1 and the same has not been returned either repaired or replaced. Moreover, it is curious enough to us that the Ops did not take any step for its necessary repairing. In our opinion if the Ops think that sell is their only motto and after selling any goods from their end they have no liability for the said product, if it is covered warranty or not, hence to protect a consumer from such unscrupulous service provider the Consumer Protection Act had been enacted In the year 1986. In the case in hand we have noticed that though the complainant enjoyed the said laptop for almost two and half years without facing any problem but during extended warranty some problem cropped up due to dead mother board and as during that period the said laptop was covered under the extended warranty, the complainant is entitled to get benefit under the said extended warranty clause. As due to dilly-dallying practice of the Ops the said extended warranty lapsed and in this respect there was no role of the complainant, so either to repair or to replace the questioned laptop is the liability of the Ops. The complainant has prayed for certain reliefs in the prayer portion of the complaint. It is true that as his grievance had not been redressed by the Ops before coming to this ld. Forum and he had to file this complaint. In this way he had to face harassment and mental anxiety due to deficiency in service on behalf of the Ops and for this reason the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the Ops. As the complainant by filing this complaint has sought for redressal of his grievance and incurred some expenditure, in our view he is also entitled to get some amount towards litigation cost. The complainant has prayed for Rs. 10,000=00 towards Cyber Café bill and private laptop bill which he had to pay for his personal and official work at home during absence of the questioned laptop, but in this respect the complainant has failed to corroborate such claim by adducing cogent evidence in support of such contention. Moreover, in the petition of complaint nowhere it is stated that he used to official work to the said laptop. So in our considered view the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as sought for in the prayer no. (b). In the prayer the complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the laptop to the tune of Rs. 22,500=00 along with interest @8%. In this respect we are to say that in view of the Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 we can order the Ops to remove the defect as pointed out by the Service Engineer of the OP-1 from the goods in question. If the defect cannot be removed, question crops up for replacement of the same with a new and defect-free one and in default, direction can be given to the service provider to return the price of the goods to the consumer. So in view of the said section we can restrain ourselves to pass any order directing to refund the cost of the laptop as prayed for by the complainant.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP-1 and on contest against the OP-2&3. The Ops are directed either jointly or severally to return the questioned laptop to the complainant after removing the defect of the mother board and other defects, if any, of the questioned laptop through repairing within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the Ops are directed either jointly or severally to replace the questioned laptop with a new, similar description and defect-free laptop to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of failure to repair the defective parts of the laptop. Be it mentioned that in case of non-compliance of the above-mentioned two directions (either/or) the Ops are directed either jointly or severally to return the price of the laptop to the tune of Rs. 22,500=00 along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 31.10.2014 till realization of the entire amount within 90 days from the date of passing of judgment. The Ops are further directed for making payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000=00 either jointly or severally to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree into execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
