Order-10.
Date-26/05/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that OP1 is the manufacturer of HP Laptop. OP2 is unauthorized seller of HP Laptop and OP3 is service centre of OP1. The complainant for his personal use purchased a HP Laptop(Product Name L- 2 y68PA) from OP2 at a cost of Rs.31,500/- on 29-05-2015 with one year warranty. The complainant states that within one week from the date of purchase the aforesaid HP Laptop was found defective and the complainant immediately intimated the same to OP2 and asked to replace the HP Laptop. Complainant as per direction of OP2 deposited the same to the authorized service centre of OP1 on 17-06-2015 and the service centre after repair handed over the same to the complainant on 22-06-2015 and wrote the service call report summary “replace immediately, new display coming” so, the complainant’s grievance is continuing. The complainant again in February, 2016 found that the subject laptop was not functioning and the complainant again handed over the said laptop to the service centre on 256-02-2016 and OP3 in service call report wrote “Replace Keyboard” and after replacement of keyboard the same was handed over to the complainant on 01-02-2016. Again in the month of June, 2016 the said laptop was found not functioning and he again went to the office of OPs2 and 3 but OP2 demanded a sum of Rs.1,750/- for replacement of keyboard and the complainant refused to pay the same due to inherent defect since the date of purchase. Moreover, the fact remains that OP2 issued an extended warranty Gold card in favour of the complainant and accordingly, claim for money for replacement of Keyboard cannot sustain. However, the complainant with objection paid a sum of Rs.1,350/- and OP2 without any objection accepted the same and repaired the said and handed over the laptop to the complainant on 17-08-2016. The complainant came back to his house with the laptop and reaching home, he found that the new keyboard developed defects and the complainant again went to OP’s office and informed the same problem and OP2 refused to accept the said laptop from the complainant. The complainant, as such, came back to his house and found the laptop could not be shut down as per system. The complainant has alleged that a defective laptop was sold to him. The complainant through his Advocate sent a legal notice dated 30-11-2016 to the OP and requested the OPs for replacement of the subject Laptop but the OPs did not take any action and denied to take any step. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect and deficiency in service against the OPs. Complainant has prayed for replacement of the subject laptop along with further relief in terms of the prayer of the complaint.
OP1 has filed written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. The allegations in the complaint are also denied. It is stated that complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of inherent defects in the laptop in question. It is stated that all the products manufactured by the answering OP are marketed after being approved by the appropriate authority. It is stated that in absence of an expert report the allegation of the complainant cannot be established. It is stated that the service team of the answering OP had promptly attended the issues reported by the complainant tried to dissolve the issues as per the terms of warranty obligation. It is stated that the answering OP is not liable for replacement of the laptop or refund of the cost of laptop. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP2 has also contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant has filed this case to achieve wrongful gain. This OP has also denied all the allegations in the petition.
OPs 3 has not contested the case. Hence, the case has proceeded ex parte against OP3.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the subject laptop was defective?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
It is worthy to point out at the very outset that OP1 filed a written version which is neither verified nor signed and subsequently, OP1 has not also turned up to contest the case.
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of retail invoice amounting to Rs.31,500/-, Xerox copy of service calls report dated 17-06-2015, Xerox copy of service call report dated 25-02-2016 time 18.06, Xerox copy of service call report dated 25-02-2016 time 06.06, Xerox copy of retail invoice of Rs.1,518/-, Xerox copy of letter addressed to the OPs dated 30-11-2016, Xerox copy of legal notice dated 28-12-2016 and other documents on record.
No document is filed from the side of the OPs.
We find that the OP1 is the manufacturer of subject laptop. OP2 is the seller of the product of OP1. OP3 is service centre of OP1.
From the documents on record we find that the complainant purchased the HP Laptop, subject matter of dispute from the shop of OP2 at a cost of Rs.31,500/-= on 29-05-2015 with one year warranty. It also appears from the service call report that the aforesaid HP Laptop started giving problem within one week from the date of purchase. The complainant intimated the same to OPs1 and 2 and also deposited the subject laptop to the authorized service centre of OP1 on 17-06-2015, 22-05-2015, 25-02-2016 and 01-03-2016. We also find that the service centre replaced keyboard and other parts as required from time to time. We also find that OP2 also took an amount of Rs.1,445/- for replacement of the keyboard but it also appears that new keyboard also developed defects. It is alleged that complainant again informed the said problem but OP2 refused to accept the said laptop from the complainant. We find that the complainant purchased the laptop on 29-05-2015 and it is not also denied from the side of the OPs that the laptop developed defect within one week of date of purchase, the complainant changed the memory card, keyboard but to no good. It is true no expert opinion is obtained at the instance of the complainant to establish the allegation of inherent manufacturing defect in the laptop in question but it appears that the laptop in question demonstrated defects since within one week from the date of its purchase and replacement of keyboard or memory card or other parts could not even improve the situation. So, it can easily be inferred that the laptop in question had some inherent manufacturing defect and which could not even be cured by the service centre. Moreover, the problem or the defect cropped up within the warranty period. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold even without expert report that the laptop in question had basic inherent defect which could not be cured ultimately. We think that since the problem cropped up since the very beginning of the purchase and within the warranty period it would be fit and proper to pass an order for replacement of the product. We think that OPs have been negligent and deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and has also exacted an amount of Rs.1,350/- for replacement of the keyboard even within the warranty period/extended warranty Gold card. We think that complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for
Hence,
Ordered
That the compliant be and the same is allowed ex parte against OP1 and dismissed on contest against OP 2, being the seller of the product.
OP1 is directed to replace the subject laptop with a new one with fresh warranty within one month from the date of this order apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. OP1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony.
We make no order as against OP3.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
