DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya.A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member         Date of filing: 04/02/2022      

CC/24/2022

Suryaprakash

S/o Jayaprakash, Mahalakshmi Stores

Padashala Road, Thekkegramam Post

      Chittur, Palakkad                                                     -         Complainant

(By Adv. B.Kamalchand)

Vs

1.   The Authorised Signatory

Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Office, EC2 Campus

HP Avenue, Survey No. 39 (PART)

Electronic City Phase II, Hosur Road

Bangalore – 560 100

2.   The Authorised Signatory

HP India Customer Care HO

GF, Global e-Business Ops Pvt. Ltd.

No.66/2, Ward No.83, Bagmane Tech

Park, 7^th Floor, A Wing, Embassy Prime

CV Raman Nagar, Bengalore – 560 093

(Opposite parties 1 & 2 Ex-parte)

3.   The Authorised Singantory

      Flipkart, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor

7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block

Koramangala, Industrial Layout

Bangalore – 560 034

(By Adv. Manoj Ambatt)

4.   The Authorised Signatory

      Tech-Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd.

      Regd. Office 703-704, 7^th Floor

Magnum Tower 1, Archview Drive

Sector 58, Golf Course Extension Road

Gurugram

      Haryana – 122 011                                                   -        Opposite parties

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant purchased on 08/11/2020 from 4^th opposite party a Laptop manufactured by opposite parties 1 and 2 through the online platform of the 3^rd opposite party for Rs. 76,990/-

By the month of November 2021, the Laptop started malfunctioning.  Immediately he approached the customer care of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through e-mail and registered a complaint.  The officials of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party after inspecting the Laptop informed that the Laptop is having some defect and he will have to spend huge amount to repair the same.  The Laptop was in warranty period and hence the refusal of the opposite parties to attend the defect free of cost as per warranty term is deficiency in service and hence approached this Commission seeking direction to rectify the defect or replace the Laptop along with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service apart from cost.

2.   Notices were issued to opposite parties.  Notice to 1^st opposite party got returned with endorsement “Refused” and hence the name was called in open court and set ex-parte.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not file version within the statutory period.  Hence names were called in open court and set ex-parte.  4^th opposite party did not attend the proceedings and hence name was called in open court and was set ex-parte.

3.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext. A1 to A4 as evidence.  Ext. A1 is the tax invoice of the Laptop issued by 4^th opposite party.  Ext. A2 is the parcel address slip with shipping details, etc., Ext. A3 and Ext. A4 are the e-mails related to the registration of complaint by the opposite parties 1 and 2.

4.   In the absence of any version or affidavit along with documents from the side of the opposite party, we have to rely only on the proof affidavit and the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant to arrive at any conclusion as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

      Ext. A1, the invoice for the purchase of Laptop dated 08/11/2020 clearly shows that the product is having 1 year onsite warranty.  Ext. A3 is the complaint registered by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party as case No: 5075172331 dated 03/11/2021 clearly showing the failure description as “Laptop is not turning on”.  Ext. A4; mail from

          From the above, it is evident that the complainant reported the defect on 03/11/2021 i.e. within the warranty period specified in the invoice of the Laptop purchased.  Hence the opposite parties have the legal duty to rectify the defect under warranty terms.  However it is not clear why the opposite parties denied the same and informed the complainant that the cost of rectification have to be met by him.

          Further the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer who is primarily responsible for the warranty even refused to accept the notice issued by this Commission; which clearly shows their indifference and lack of interest to settle the matter amicably even after the filing of this complaint.

      In the result, we have to conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party as the responsibility of ensuring after sales service as per warranty terms is the basic responsibility of the manufacturer.

      Therefore the complaint is allowed ordering the following as the complainant could prove a prima facie case against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

1. The 1^st/2^nd opposite party is directed to rectify the defect of the Laptop under warranty or to refund Rs. 76,990/- being the cost of the Laptop along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment.
2. 1^st/2^nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for delay in service and
3. Rs. 10,000/- as cost.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 16^th day May, 2023.

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                       President 

                                                               Sd/-

                                                       Vidya A

                                 Member   

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                    Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Invoice dated 08/11/2020.

Ext. A2: Parcel address pasted by opposite party.

Ext. A3: E-mail received from HP case dated 03/11/2021.

Ext. A4: E-mail dated 05/11/2021.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs. 10,000/- 

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.