Order-17.
Date-25/08/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP is the dealer, OP2 is the manufacturer and OP3 is the service centre.
Complainant for his need purchased one HCL Laptop model AE1 V2943-X, Serial No.A111AE033986 from the OP1 on payment of full consideration of Rs.38,690/-.
After purchasing the laptop complainant used the same but within the few days the laptop was not found working which was reported on 10-08-2012 and on the basis of the said complaint the service centre replaced the defective hard disk without data back up on 25-08-2012.
Complainant again lodged complaint on 25-04-2014 as the laptop was not working and the service centre again repaired the same. but in respect of such service the laptop was not working, battery is not working and touch pad is not working and there is other defects in the said laptop like auto key. So, complainant lodged compliant to the OP and requested to refund the price as the said laptop was not working since its purchase and OP received the complaint on 22-08-2014 and requested the complainant to fill up the DT-LT Template but in reply the complainant requested for inspection of the laptop and refund of the price.
On 11-09-2014 Manager-Legal of HCL Services Ltd. again requested the complainant to get the laptop repaired but in reply the complainant made reply on 25-09-2014 asking refund f the price of the laptop.
Complainant further submits that since purchase the laptop has not been working properly and due to the reasons the complainant suffers a lot and finding no other alternative he files before this Forum for getting relief and for getting refund of the price of the laptop on the ground that the laptop is not giving proper service and for selling defective item and further for adopting such deceitful manner of service.
On the other hand OP2 by filing written statement submitted that as and when any complaint was lodged by the complainant to the OP on receipt of the same always service centre was given service and lastly the complaint dated 20-08-2014 was received by the OP where complainant demanded the refund of the price of the laptop and he was requested to report the matter to the service centre for providing necessary service but complainant refused to lodge any complaint that is registered as per warranty clause and demanded refund of the laptop price but even in spite of refusal by the complainant to get the complaint registered, the service engineer of the service centre of the OP2 visited the complainant’s residence on 26-08-2014 and inspected the said laptop and after inspection noted by the service engineer the observations about “improper response from keypad. Some keys are not working like number 3.0. = etc., left + right button of touch pad works intermittently, low battery back up as per customer observation but battery charging properly”.
OP2 has specifically stated that after the detection of problem service engineer was ready and willing to repair the said laptop but in spite of repeated requests the complainant/his representative refused to avail service from the service engineer for repair of the laptop. Thereafter, on 11-09-2014 OP2 replied to the complainant’s written complaint dated 20-08-2014 and requested the complainant to bring the laptop to their service centre for repair but the complainant failed to bring the laptop to the service centre of the OP2 for repair but complainant did not appear and did not place the same before the service centre for repair and for which there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
It is specifically mentioned by the OP2 that this laptop was purchased about 3 years ago and in between that complainant lodged two complaint dated 09-08-2012 and 25-04-2014 and both the complaints was duly solved on full satisfaction of the complainant and all the problems are raised by the complainant is very minor in nature and reparable and it was for continuous use and simple wear and tear. Service centre solved both the problems but in case of last complaint the complainant did not allow the OP2 and the service centre to render any service to repair the said laptop just to fill his unlawful demand. Moreover, his warranty period was already lapsed there after it was extended after payment and as per said terms and condition complainant is not entitled for refund of the price of the laptop and extended warranty is meant for proving any necessary service to the branded product within its extended validity period. So, the claim of the complainant is no doubt beyond the warranty clause and is not maintainable and for which the complaint should be dismissed.
OP1, the dealer and the OP3 the service centre have not appeared even after service of the notice and have not filed any written version. Accordingly, we are deciding the consumer dispute on merit.
Decision with Reasons
On comparative study of the complaint and the written version and particularly the complainant’s version in complaint and also hearing the complainant and the materials on record it is clear that admittedly complainant purchased this laptop on 28-07-2012 with warranty and that basic warranty started from 28-07-2012 which ended on 28-07-2013. First complaint was lodged by the complainant on 10-08-2012 and that was forthwith attended by the OPs and the minor complication was detected and that was cured. Thereafter, complainant continuously used the same till 2nd complaint lodged on 25-04-2014 that means in the meantime first warranty expired and he used it continuously for about 2 years. Thereafter, no doubt the OP service centre’s engineer went to the complainant’s house asked them to place the same before the service centre but thereafter complainant did not place it and no doubt during the period of extended warranty problem was detected and HCL Company’s engineer went to the house of the complainant and asked him to place the same for necessary replacement of any item what they shall have to do but complainant did not deposit it but he prayed for refund of the price which is fact.
Considering the entire materials we are convinced that in fact during the first warranty period after purchase there was no manufacturing defect even today there is no manufacturing defect because on the basis of the complaint of the complainant what OP received on 22-08-2014. Deputy Engineer inspected the same and asked the complainant to place the laptop to the service centre but complainant did not place it but demanded the refund of money and that is the common practice of most of the consumer in respect of such sort of article and during extended warranty period such sort of claim is made but as per such sort of warranty clause the complainant is not entitled to get back any price amount in respect of the laptop, only he is entitled to get service or replacement of item but not any refund of money what we have gathered and that is the clause of warranty. So, complainant is not entitled to get refund of any money in respect of the claim as made by the complainant and it is not maintainable as per warranty clause but no doubt complainant is entitled to get service and invariably OPs 2 and 3 repaired the same and they agreed to repair the same asking the complainant to place the item to the service centre or the company but complainant is so arrogant that he is not ready to place it before service centre but his only demand is to get money and that is the common practice of the consumer in such sort of cases.
No doubt we have realized that what is the intention of the consumer in the present case and understood the basic cause for filing the case that is for refund of money but it is not applicable as per extended warranty clause.
But we have failed to understand for what reason complainant did not place the said laptop to the service centre when OP engineer instructed to place and necessary repair shall be made by the OPs2 and 3 that is admitted by the OPs2 and 3 then it is clear that intention of the consumer is not to get relief as per extended warranty but his only desire is to get refund of entire amount within extended warranty period.
That is the psychological aspect of the consumer at large but we have realized the consumer’s philosophy and psychological factor in particularly in this case. However, we are unable to cure that psychological problem of the complainant but we can cure the defect of the laptop the item when there is the extended warranty and when OP2 the HCL company already reported to the complainant that they are ready to repair and make it fit for use but complainant is unwilling to place the same. So, negligence and deficiency is not found on the part of the OPs but negative attitude of the consumer and his negative consumer behaviour is detected and in the above circumstances as per admission of the OP2 we are directing the complainant to hand over the laptop to the service centre for repair and OPs No.2 and 3 to make it free from any trouble so that the complainant may use it but no other order can be passed particularly in this case considering negative consumer behaviour on the part of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OP2 and same is allowed against OPs1 and 3 but without any cost.
Complainant is directed to place the laptop in the service centre of the OP2 and OP2 shall have to repair the same with the help of their service centre, OP3 or any other service center as would be fixed by the OP2 and hand over the laptop to the complainant after necessary repairing and make it free from any trouble. Invariably OPs 2 and 3 on receipt of the said laptop from the complainant shall forthwith take such step for such repair and to make it free from trouble so that complainant may use it during the extended warranty period.
OP2 shall take such steps to comply the order in variably after receipt of the laptop on proper receipt from the complainant.
Complainant as consumer is directed to be more meaningful consumer in future and no negative attitude should be shown if service provider is willing to give service but the approach of the present consumer approach is not at all appreciated by this Forum.
Complainant to act accordingly as per spirit of this judgment and invariably OP2 shall comply the same on receipt of the laptop and a compliance report must be submitted by the complainant after lapse of 45 days from the date of this order.
