Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/321/2017

Shrey Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

30 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/321/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	30/07/2019

 

Shrey Khurana S/o Sh. Sanjeev Khurana, R/o H.No.1185, Aryan New Light Society, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Reliance Retail Limited, Elante Mall, Shop No. 247, 2^nd Floor, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      Reliance Retail Limited, Corporate Park, C/o Relene Petro Chemicals Limited, Dhansoli, Thane – 400701, through its Managing Director.

 

3.      Riddhiman, HP Trusted Advisor, Ground Floor, Vatika City Point M.G Road, Near M.G. Road Metor Station, Gurgaon- 122001, through its Manager. (Deleted vide order dated 08.12.2017).

 

4.      Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Limited, 24, Salarpuuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, through its Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 deleted.
	:	Sh.Vipul Dharmani, Counsel for Opposite Party No.4.

 

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a Laptop make HP Pavilion Notebook 15-ab21TX ALL on 25.12.2015 for Rs.50,700/- vide invoice dated 27.12.2015 from Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-1), manufactured by Opposite Party No.4, along with inbuilt warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The product was purchased along with extended warranty for a period of 1 year on the payment of Rs.3199/- effective from 25.12.2016 to 24.12.2017.  On 22.03.2016, the Complainant noticed a crack on the body of the Laptop and immediately lodged a Complaint with HP Support Centre, whereafter a Representative/Technical Support of HP contacted the Complainant and personally checked the Laptop which was found to be side broken and conveyed to the Complainant that as the same was under warranty, it would be replaced. However, to the surprise of the Complainant, a call was received from the HP Support Centre, advising him to claim the replacement under warranty through Reliance Retail Limited (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) through whom the product was purchased. As per the advice given, the Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1, but nothing was done to redress the grievance of the Complainant. Eventually, a legal notice (Annexure C-2) was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have contested the complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that they are engaged in retail sale of various products including the Laptop HP Pavilion Note Book manufactured by various manufacturers including Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Limited (Opposite Party No.4). The Opposite Party No.4 is providing all after sales services to the products manufactured by it through its authorized service centers only and answering Opposite Parties have no role to play therein. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Per endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the order sheet dated 18.10.2017, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 08.12.2017.
5.         Opposite Party No.4 filed its separate reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that it was not within its knowledge that Complainant had got the warranty extended for a period of one year on payment of Rs.3199/-. The Opposite Party No.4 is not responsible or liable if the warranty was extended by the Opposite Party No.1 in its independent capacity. As per records, the warranty provided to the Laptop was for a period of one year from the date of purchase i.e. start date was 27.12.2015 and end date 26.12.2016. The Complainant had lodged the first Complaint with the Customer Care Centre of answering Opposite Party on 22.03.2016 reporting crack on the body of the Laptop. On receipt of the Complaint, the Service Team of the answering Opposite Party attended the Complaint lodged promptly, on inspection found that the issue reported was caused due to the physical damage which was considered to be a customer induced damage and not covered under the terms and conditions of warranty. Accordingly, the Complainant was informed that the issue reported cannot be fixed free of cost and he was offered resolution of the issue on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty. But the Complainant failed to agree for the services offered on chargeable basis and insisted on the replacement of the Laptop. While admitting the receipt of legal notice, Opposite Party No.4 has asserted that the same was suitably replied. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         Separate replications were filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written replies of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.4.
7.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
9.         On perusal of the documents available on record, we find that the Customer Care Centre of the Opposite Parties received a Complaint on 22.03.2016 regarding crack on the body of the laptop. On inspection by the Service Team of the Opposite Parties, it was found that the reported crack was caused due to the physical damage, which is considered to be a customer induced damage and not covered under the terms of the warranty and the laptop was also not registered under the accidental damage plan. The Complainant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence that the said accidental damage was covered under the terms of the warranty. It has also come on record that the Opposite Parties had offered to resolve the issue on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty, but the Complainant did not agree for the same and filed the present Complaint. Hence, in our opinion, no case is made out against Opposite Parties and the present Complaint qua Opposite Parties deserves to be dismissed. 
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
30/07/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President