DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.224 of 24-05-2010 Decided on 31-08-2010 Moti Lal Singla, aged about 47 years, son of Sh.Bhagwan Dass Singla, resident of # 13323A, St.No.12, Namdev Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
1. The Complete Computer Stationers, Lane No.6, Lower Mall, Near Bhanamal Trust, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/partner. 2. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., commonly known as HP India, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030 (Karnataka) through its Managing Director. .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Saminder Singh, counsel for opposite party No.2. Sh.Rajiv Goyal, Prop. of opposite party No.1.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased HP Laptop/Notebook PAV.DV4-1411 Sr.No.CND93250BB on 19.10.2009 from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 vide Invoice No.1809 for a sum of Rs.44,300/-. The opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer of the opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of the Laptop/Notebook in question, the opposite party No.1 orally conveyed the complainant that it carries warranty/guarantee of one year on the whole of the product i.e. Hardware and Software and that the price of the Windows Vista Home Premium includes in the bill amount. The complainant alleged that no terms and conditions were supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. In the middle of January,2010, the Laptop/Notebook in question went out of order. The Engineer of the service centre of opposite party No.2 after examining the Laptop/Notebook conveyed the complainant that the motherboard had become defective. The concerned Engineer replaced the motherboard after 15 days. After replacement, the Windows Vista Home Premium loaded in the Laptop at the time of purchase, for which guarantee was given by the opposite parties has been corrupted/ damaged. The Engineer of the service centre of opposite party No.2 conveyed the complainant that he was unable to load the windows as he was not having the DVDs of windows of PAV DV-1411 (Windows Vista Home Premium). The complainant alleged that he approached the opposite party No.2 for providing DVDs of windows Vista Home Premium, the complainant also sent e-mail on 17.02.2010 and 22.03.2010 to opposite party No.2. He has not received reply to these e-mails. He also called on customer care numbers but they did not listen. The complainant also got Internet connection No.5003466 from Connect (HFCL Infotel Ltd.) after paying Rs.830/- but due to non-installation of the proper windows, the Laptop is not taking up the Internet and the complainant unable to open the Net on the Laptop. The complainant is also paying Internet charges of Rs.611/- P.M. Regularly since January, 2010. 2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 has denied the fact that the complainant has never informed regarding any problem in the Laptop. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the Invoice No.1809 dated 19.10.2009, all the warranties are covered by the company through its authorized service centre. So, the matter is between Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant. The complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1, if he would have approached them, they would have lodged a complaint to the service centre of the company. The opposite party No.2 in its written statement pleaded that the opposite party No.1 from whom, the complainant had purchased the printer is not an authorized dealer/authorized support service provider of the HP branded computers and printers manufactured by opposite party No.2 and there is no privity of contract between the opposite party No.2 on one hand and the opposite party No.1 on the other hand. The opposite party No.2 is neither responsible for nor liable for the assurances given by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant in its independent capacity. The opposite party No.2 further pleaded that the opposite party No.1 is not the Authorized Support Service partner of opposite party No.2, it has no authority to provide HP products. On 15.01.2010 vide Case ID No.4609207175 complaining issues in the Laptop for which the Customer Care Centre of the opposite party replaced the System board and the unit was working fine. On 12.02.2010 & 13.02.2010 vide Case ID No.4610480268 & ID No.4610499781 complaining regarding the issues in the operating system for which the Customer Care Centre of the opposite party had given the complainant the details to order through CCC and asked him to contact the technical team. On 13.02.2010 and 22.03.2010 vide Case ID No.4610500959 & ID No.4612130486 complaining with regard to the complainant and operative system issues as the recovery DVD was not in stock, the Customer Care Center of this opposite party had asked the complainant to contact after 20 days. The opposite party No.2 had admitted the fact that the Engineer of the service centre of opposite party No.1 had informed the complainant that at the time of replacing the motherboard, the Windows Vista Home Premium was corrupted and that the windows is under warranty and the same will be provided by the service centre of the opposite party No.2. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by both the parties perused. 5. The complainant purchased HP Laptop/Notebook on 19.10.2009 with one year warranty/guarantee. In January, 2010, the said Laptop/Notebook went out of order and the motherboard was replaced. After replacing the motherboard, the Windows have been damaged/ corrupted. The Engineer of Service Centre of opposite parties conveyed the complainant that they are unable to load the windows and the windows were under guarantee/warranty and it will be provided by opposite party No.2. The complainant complained to the Customer Care on telephone and sent e-mails on different dates. He was unable to operate his Internet connection because of the non-installation of the proper windows. The opposite party No.1 pleaded that the terms and conditions are issued solely by the company through authorized service centre. So, the matter is between Hewlett Packard Sales India Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant. The complainant had lodged the complaint to the Customer Care, the same were promptly attended and the units were working fine. The opposite party No.2 is willing to investigate into the nature of the grievance and provide all after sales customer care support to the complainant and he can also avail the recovery CD from the service center. The complainant has faced problems after motherboard was replaced as the windows were not working being corrupted/damaged when he approached for installation the windows, the DVD were not available with the opposite party No.1. They further recommend to approach the opposite party No.2. Due to the corrupted windows, the complainant is unable to use his Internet connection on the Laptop in question. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This complaint is accepted with Rs.500/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is directed to provide recovery DVD/CD of Windows Vista Home Premium to the complainant and dismissed against the opposite party No.1. 6. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 31.08.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
