BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 15^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to OPs to rectify the Laptop or replace with new Laptop in alternative, sought direction to OPs to refund this amount of Rs.64,239/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, loss and mental agony, cost of litigation.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

 Complainant purchased a Laptop Model HP Pavilion Sero 13.3 inch Laptop, 13-be000(3B3W3AV) volume note books, from OP No.2 who is authorized marketing and supplier of the product of OP No.1. OP No.1 is manufacturer and OP No.3 is authorized service centre at Bangalore in this case. OP No.2 supplied the said Laptop under the invoice No.CH1R12122109009 dated 08.12.2021 to the complainant. Complainant purchased the Laptop for his day to day requirement, per se instructions of manual and his pre-experience of usage of said Laptop. During April 2022, the complainant started facing problem in Laptop i.e. sudden collapse of system showing “restart”, resulted in abstract disturbance and lost data of work in progress”. Complainant contacted OP No.2 to get it rectified. OP No.1 referred the said repair in the Laptop to OP No.3 who is local authorized service centre to the product of OP No.1. Accordingly complainant approached OP No.3 for the rectification in his Laptop with the intention to use the system for his day to day usage. After rectification in the first week of May 2022, the said Laptop account caused problem and the similar problem persisted in the system. Complainant raised a complaint before OP No.3 on 06.05.2022 by mail. However OP No.3 on 17.05.2022 while taking excuse and exception of “user no response on mail and on call”, attempt to close the complaint, subsequently followed up by OP No.1 customer support mail on the same day, OP No.3 service person visited and on verification started to change some components in the system which will get back to system into functioning and same has been communicated to OP No.1 support team on 18.05.2022, OP No.1 responded with an assurance to assign the same to their backend team who would get in touch with complainant within 24-48 hours. But OP No.1 failed to attend the defect in the system, followed by their further mail dated 20.05.2022, 24.05.2022, 25.05.2022 and 29.05.2022.

3. Complainant alleged that OP has suffered defective Laptop and also not willing to rectify the defect in the same, though it is within the period of warranty. It caused mental agony to the complainant. OPs did not bother to follow the complaint raised by the complainant and also not bothered to rectify the Laptop when the problem occurred within 4 months of its purchase. Despite suffering from the defective product, though the complainant has been made to follow the repairs/services works with OPs by leaving his routine works, resulted to complainant to undergo sufferings from immense mental agony even the alleged deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Complainant caused legal notice to OPs on 02.06.2022 calling upon to rectify and service Laptop or an alternative, to replace the new Laptop within 7 days from the date of receipt of legal notice but OP did not reply to the notice nor complied the claim of the complainant as sought. Hence complainant approached this commission.

4. After issuance of notice, OP No.1&2 represented through their counsel and submitted their statement of objection to the complainant. OP No.3 was absent on the date of appearance, hence OP No.3 placed Ex-parte. 

5. OP No.1 denied all the allegations made by the complainant and stated that the warranty period of 1 year from the date of purchase with regard to the Laptop is in question? And the warranty explicit the terms and conditions of such limited warranty, the said in unequivocal terms that warranty coverage extends till the product is depleted or the warranty ends. OP No.1 admitted that complainant has raised issues in the Laptop during different dates under different case registration i.e. from 29.03.2022 to 25.05.2022 in vide different I.D numbers. Since the OP No.1 is customer friendly company, if the complaint is genuine, the company has no problem in redressing the same since it has complaint redressal department and customer care centers. When the complainant reported that the Laptop has issues in ‘no power and auto restart issue’, on receipt of the complaints the service team to OP No.1 has attended the complaints alleged, extended their support, the service team diagnozied their Laptop for reported issues and resolved reported issues remotely by calling out repair services and by replacing the mother board as per the terms of warranty. OP No.1 contends that electronic equipments considers various minute components depends on electrical supply and proper electrical supply of system and software installed in the system. The whole purposes of taking warranty by consumer is because the electronic system is towards vulnerable to failure, due to some or any of the defects in the components. On these reasons OP No.1 prays this commission to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. In the version of OP No.2, OP No.2 denied all the allegations made by the complainant against him and also taken contention that OP No.2 is not proper and necessary party to the said complaint. OP No.2 however admits that they are the suppliers/dealers of HP products and he also admitted that the complainant has purchased the Laptop model HP Pavilion Sero 13.3 inch Laptop, 13-be000(3B3W3AV) volume note books. OP further denied that complainant has contacted for the trouble faced by him with his Laptop and for its rectification. OP No.2 stated in its version that all the alleged defects will be rectified by changing the defective parts at the cost/expenses as the OP No.2 is not manufacturer of the product neither OP No.2 is authorized service provider. Complainant despite being fully aware of the facts that OP No.2 is only dealer of HP product as maliciously and with ulterior motives alleged baselessly. OP No.2 contended that the product is delivered to the complainant on 08.12.2021, the same was received by complainant in good and satisfactory condition and no grievance were arised by the complainant at the time of delivery of the same. Hence he prays this commission to dismiss the complaint with cost.

7. After the stage of version, the case is set down to adduce evidence of both parties. Accordingly complainant filed oral evidence, reiterated as stated in the complaint. He also filed certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act along with 3 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 in support of oral evidence. OP No.1 filed 3 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. On behalf of OP No.2 no one has filed affidavit evidence, hence it is taken as Nil. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the documents available in the record and written arguments filed.

8. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                  REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

11. Complainant has purchased a Laptop model HP Pavilion Sero 13.3 inch Laptop, 13-be000 3B3W3AV) volume note books, by paying Rs.64,239/- on 08.12.2021. For that OP No.2 has issued tax invoice which is at Ex.P.1. On perusal of the documents and the pleadings before this commission, there is no dispute with regard to the defect in Laptop within short span of purchase i.e. in the month of March 2022. Complainant started facing sudden collapse of system in showing restart and no power supply, abstract disturbance to loss of data in progress. The same has been raised as complaint with OP No.1 customer care centre which is also not disputed. OP No.1 in its version admitted that on several occasions complainant has registered the issues in the Laptop and the same has been attended by OP No.1 service team and also admitted that the mother board in the Laptop has been replaced by OP No.1 team.

12. Even after the repair complainant was not satisfied with the repair service made by OP No.1, the problem still persist in the Laptop. OP No.2 has taken contention that the product Laptop is manufactured by OP No.1, he is the only dealer and supplier to the customers, is not liable to repair or replace the components for free of cost. When the said Laptop problem in power supply and sudden fall of restart, means to be major problem and with that the complainant has lost money and his data, this might have caused mental agony. Complainant has produced service call report dated 15.04.2022 which is at Ex.P.2 and the other E-mails communication towards complainant and OPs, shows that complainant has faced lot of inconvenience in his day to day official work which are at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5. On 25.05.2022 complainant registered the new I.D with OP No.1 which is at Ex.P.6, likewise complainant registered several complaints with regard to Laptop but OP No.1 to 3 have not bothered to rectify the same and the bring the Laptop in good condition to the complainant. Therefore complainant caused legal notice on 02.06.2022 calling upon OPs to rectify the defective Laptop or replace with new one. Though the notice were duly served on OPs, OPs did not bother to comply the claim of the complainant and also not replied to the legal notice of complainant. Ex.R.2 discloses that the mother board in the Laptop is replaced on 25.04.2022. It shows the important components i.e. mother board is replaced in the beginning months of the purchase of Laptop, it clearly exhibits that the said Laptop in question has major and manufacturing defect. In our considered view OPs have caused deficiency of service by not rectifying the Laptop or replied to the legal notice if they are genuine in their attitude. Hence OPs are liable to comply the claim of the complainant. In our considered view the electronic products have changed their specifications, configurations, often hence his claim towards replacement of Laptop with new one in also not right. The said Laptop was under warranty period and not rectified by OP No.1, though replaced mother board, exhibits it has manufacturing defect. Since, in our opinion complainant is entitled to get refund of amount of Rs.64,239/- paid towards purchase of Laptop. Complainant has claimed 18% interest on Rs.64,239/- and also he claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation which seems to be exorbitant, therefore complainant is entitled for 8% p.a. interest on amount he paid and Rs.10,000/- towards lost of litigation. On the above discussion, we answer Point No.1&2 in affirmative and partly affirmative respectively.

15. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part against OP No.1&2 and dismissed against OP No.3
2. OPs No.1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.64,239/- with 8% interest p.a. from 08.12.2021 till realization by collecting the Laptop from complainant, if it is in his possession.
3. OPs are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OPs shall pay interest at the rate of 10% interest p.a. after the expiry of 30 days till realization.
4. Furnish the copies to both the parties without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 15^th day of DECEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;