DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.08 of 04-01-2013
Decided on 07-05-2013
Rishab Goyal aged about 32 years S/o Bharat Bhushan Goyal R/o House No.67, St.No.4, Minocha Colony Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The complete computer stationers lane No.6, lower mall, near Bhana mal trust, Bathinda.
2.M/s Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., 24, Salapuria Arena, Adugodi, House Road, Banglore, through its Corporate Office/Managing Director.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sham Lubhaya, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Rajiv Goyal, Prop. of the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Bhuvnesh Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased the new laptop, model No.COMPAQ CQ57-300 TU INTEL PENTUIM/2/500/15.6/DOS-5CB13534C9 vide invoice No.2244 on dated 2.1.2012, manufactured by the opposite party No.2, from the opposite party No.1 for his personal use for Rs.23,000/-. At the time of selling the said laptop, the opposite party No.1 promised the warranty/guarantee of the replacement of the said laptop will be for 2 years in case of any fault in it. After about 20 to 25 days from the date of purchase, the newly purchased laptop, lost its memory and this fact brought to the knowledge of the opposite party No.1 and the service centre of the opposite parties. These problems were temporarily rectified by the technician of the service centre and the said laptop was returned after 3 days. After few days from the earlier complaint, the same problem was again noticed in the said laptop and was brought to the knowledge of the technician of the service centre of the opposite parties and thereafter it became a routine matter. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 many times to replace the said laptop which has some manufacturing defect in it but it refused to replace the same. The technician of the opposite parties have also failed to rectify the defect in the said laptop. The complainant has sent the legal notice to the opposite parties on 20.12.2012. In reply to the legal notice the opposite party No.1 approached the complainant on 26.12.2012 and assured that the said laptop will be replaced within a week but it refused to replace the same. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the said laptop or to refund its amount alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and admitted that the complainant has purchased the said laptop vide invoice No.R2244 dated 2.1.2012, this invoice clearly states that the warranty is covered by the manufacturer company through its authorized service centre as per the terms and conditions of the limited warranty. On receiving the complaint of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 requested him to handover the said laptop at its shop and assured him every possible assistance as stated by the complainant. The problem was rectified by the service centre of the company to the satisfaction of the complainant and the said laptop was delivered to him. Thereafter the complainant did not approach the opposite party No.1 with the same problem or the other problems in the said laptop or contacted it. No promise was made by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant that the said laptop will be replaced. The warranty is given by the company and it is the option of the company to repair, replace or refund the amount of the said laptop. If there is defect in the material or workmanship during the limited warranty period subject to other terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty. The opposite party No.1 in para No.9 pleaded that it is not liable to replace the said laptop. However the opposite party No.2 fails to remove the defects in the workmanship/material, the company is liable to replace/refund as per the terms and conditions of the company.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that on 2.1.2012 the complainant purchased COMPAQ CQ57-300 TU INTEL PENTUIM/2/500/15.6/DOS-5CB13534C9 vide invoice No.2244 on dated 2.1.2012, manufactured by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1, the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.2. The laptops of the opposite party No.2 usually comes with a warranty of one year from the date of the purchase and the laptop in question had also one year warranty from the date of its purchase. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that once its laptop is sold to the authorized dealers, the transaction gets completed between the opposite party No.2 and its authorized dealers in respect of that laptop. There is no privity of the contract between the opposite party No.2 and the complainant in respect of the said transaction for the sale of the said laptop as such any assurances or guarantee/warranty given by the opposite party No.1 in its independent capacity shall not be binding on the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 further pleaded that after a month of the purchase of the said laptop, the complainant had reported the issue with the unit to the service centre and on inspection it was found that the issue was related to the software (operative system) and the same was resolved and fixed, after which the said laptop was working fine, the same was delivered to the complainant after 3 days as averred by him. After few days from the earlier complaint, the issues cropped up again and the complainant had reported the same to CCC, after 40 days from the lodging of the first case he had reported an issue to the service centre that the said laptop was not powering on against which after inspection the issue was resolved by the part replacement. After the filing of the complaint, the said laptop was kept under the observation for more than 10 days no issue found and after checking the unit, the complainant has collected the unit after complete demo, but after 2 day, he called and reported the same issue but he was not willing to allow the service engineer to inspect and diagnose the issues but was demanding for the replacement of the said laptop, which is not permissible under the warranty policy of the opposite party No.2.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the new laptop, model No.COMPAQ CQ57-300 TU INTEL PENTUIM/2/500/15.6/DOS-5CB13534C9 vide invoice No.2244 on dated 2.1.2012, manufactured by the opposite party No.2, from the opposite party No.1 with warranty. After about 20 to 25 days from the date of purchase, the said laptop lost its memory and the defect has been rectified by the service centre of the opposite parties. These problems were temporarily rectified by the technician of the service centre and the said laptop was returned after 3 days. After few days the same problem was again noticed in the said laptop and was brought to the knowledge of the technician of the service centre of the opposite parties and it became a routine matter. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 many times to replace the said laptop as there is some manufacturing defect but it refused to replace the same. The opposite party No.1 is the dealer who has sold the said laptop to the complainant. The warranty is given by the company regarding the defect in the material or workmanship. The opposite party No.1 has specifically mentioned in its reply in para No.9 that 'however the opposite party No.2 fails to remove the defects in the workmanship/material only then the company is liable to replace/refund as per the terms and conditions of the company'. The opposite party No.2 submitted that the laptops of the opposite party No.2 usually comes with a warranty of one year from the date of the purchase. The laptops are sold to the authorized dealers and these are further sold to their respective customers hence the transaction gets completed between the opposite party No.2 and its authorized dealers as such there is no privity of the contract between the opposite party No.2 and the complainant in respect of the transaction for the sale of the said laptop as such any assurances or guarantee/warranty given by the opposite party No.1 in its independent capacity shall not be binding on the opposite party No.2. The complainant reported the defect just after one month from the date of the purchase of the said laptop with the unit to the service centre and on inspection it was found that the issue was related to the software (operative system) and the same was resolved and fixed, after that the said laptop was working properly and the same was delivered to the complainant after 40 days from the lodging of the first complaint. The complainant reported an issue to the service centre that the said laptop was not powering on, after inspection the issue was resolved by the part replacement. After the filing of the complaint, the said laptop was kept under the observation for more than 10 days no issue found and after checking the unit, the complainant has collected the unit after compete demo, but after 2 day, he called and reported the same defect but he was not willing to allow the service engineer to inspect and diagnose the defects but was demanding for the replacement of the said laptop.
7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has purchased the laptop in question vide Ex.C1. The job sheet Ex.C5 shows that there were defects regarding the screen getting blurred when shaking and also a beap sound is produced through the system. Thereafter vide Ex.C6 the complaint was lodged regarding NB not powering on, as per CU blue screen error occurred intermittently. After that vide Ex.C7 the complaint was lodged regarding intermittently display issue. Again vide Ex.C8 dated 19.1.2013 issue reported as intermittently not power on. In all these job sheets the comments have been given by the Demo Engineer Diagnosis that 'Need to be diagnosis' but on all these job sheets no repair remarks are given by the Demo Engineer nor the job sheets has been signed by him, meaning thereby the technician or the service engineer was unable to rectify the defects in the said laptop. Moreover the opposite party No.2 has admitted in its reply that the complainant has visited the service centre to get rectify the defects in the said laptop.
8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 as the said laptop purchased by the complainant became defective just within 20 to 25 days from the date of its purchase and thereafter the defect has not been rectified and the complainant has to get it rectified many times but the defects are unrepairable. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- vide invoice No.R-2244 to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the laptop in question to the opposite party No.2 alongwith accessories of the said laptop.
9. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
10. In case of non-compliance the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.23,000/- till realization.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
07-05-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
