BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    04^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Nataraj.H.P

Advocate,

Office at No.145/3,

1^st Floor, 5^th Main, Chamarajpet,

Bengaluru-18.

By Adv.Sri.M.Nagaraju

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Director

M/s.Hewlett-Packard

India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

Having Office at No.24, Salarpura Arena,

Adugodi,

Hosur Main Road,

Bengaluru-30.

By Advocates

M/s.BSG & Associates

2. M/s.My Choice Computers Office/Retailer Shop at No.108/1, Ground Floor,

MGA Market, Airaju Muniswamappa Lane, S.P.Road Cross,

Bengaluru-02.

3. M/s.Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Service Center of OP.1)

Jayanagara, 3^rd Block, Bengaluru-11.

4. M/s.Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Service Center of OP.1)

Shop No.52, SPA Plaza, No.1094, OTC Road, Opp.Hotel Luciya International,

Bengaluru-02.

OP.2 to 4 placed exparte

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 (herein after called as OPs) to take back the system and to replace the same with brand new one; to pay Rs.1,10,500/- with interest at 12% p.a. for the supply of the defective equipment and to award such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he had purchased a HP laptop (note pad) from the retailer/OP.2 on 28.03.14. After the purchase of the laptop, it was working fine till two months. At the time of cleaning, the liquid which was applied from the cloth to wash the computer went inside the laptop due to manufacturing defect in it. The same brought to the notice of authorized service centre of OP.1, in turn, they informed the Complainant to pay cost of Rs.10,500/- to replace the screen. When the same was refused, OPs informed him to register with ADP (Accidental Damage Protection), where the replacement is without cost.  The Complainant registered with ADP, the same was approved by OPs as it was in the grace period. Hence, the Complainant approached OP.3/authorized service centre of OP.1 to replace the screen of the display and resolve the overheating issue of the laptop. But he received a mail stating that, there is a liquid spill that will not covered under the ADP. When the Complainant resisted strongly, OPs agreed for replacement. OP’s executive delivered the said laptop and stated that the issues with the laptop had been resolved after keeping it for two weeks. But the Complainant observed at night that the issue regarding heating of the laptop and problem of getting blank screen on display. Hence, consulted the service engineer who suggested him to approach service center of OP.1. In the service center, he was told that it is a hard disk failure and the same need to be replaced, but the data which stored cannot be recovery. The Complainant given consent. After repair, service center sent a mail stating that laptop is ready for the delivery and working in good condition. When the Complainant enquired with the service center for the problems in the laptop, he was informed that it is a damage piece which may resulted in the hard disk failure and only windows 8 operating system will support his laptop. When he was working with the laptop, again he faced problems in the laptop and sewer attached to the notepad has fallen. Hence, the Complainant approached OP.2/service center who checked the system and informed that all sewer in note-pad are not been tinted by the previous service centre. The OP.2 tinted the same and gives the system within an hour. After two days, the Complainant again faced the issues in the said laptop such as blank display, over heating issue, battery backup issue, E drive. There is a sound at the time of booting the CD/DVD. To get the issues of multiple defects are solved, he run pillar to post, but the issues not solved. No proper response to his phone calls also. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. He caused legal notice dtd.10.12.14 calling upon to replace the said laptop with brand new laptop with other reliefs. But OP replied on 06.03.15 stating that, replace cannot be made, but can approach the service centers. Hence this complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP.1 did appear and filed version. But OP.2 to 4 did not appear, hence placed exparte. The sum and substance of the version of OP.1 is that, the Complainant has filed this baseless and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the said laptop without having produced any expert opinion in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the laptop suffers from the problems as alleged or to establish any manufacturing defect in the said laptop. That the Sec.13(1)(c) of CP Act, 1986 states as “where the Complainant alleges a defect in goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall after obtaining a sample of the goods send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, with a view to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.” Hence submits that, in the absence of expert report, the allegations of the Complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the said laptop miserably fails and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. OP.1 placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in (2002) 3 CPF 92 (NC) in the case of K.L.Arora vs. Groovy Communications for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of Manufacturing defects in the said laptop made in the complaint. OP.1 further submits that, the Complainant ought to have been filed the affidavit of the expert to prove his allegations. The Complainant has mishandled the said laptop and brought at the service centre for physical damage repairs liquid spillage i.e. the liquid which was applied from the cloth to clean the laptop had entered the laptop, which is considered to be customer induced damage and not covered under the warranty policy of the company, that the damage is due to an external element and not a technical fault. The Complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines/procedure given in the user manual, as recommended for smooth and better performance of the said laptop at optimum cost viz. correct operating procedures – do’s and don’ts for maintenance and performance of the computer. Whenever the Complainant brought the said laptop to the service centre, the same was duly attended. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on its part. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 filed affidavit evidence. Both filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OP.1.  The overall allegation of the Complainant is that there is manufacturing defect in the said laptop. The say of the OP.1 is that, the alleged manufacturing defect if any has to be proved by the Complainant by adducing an expert opinion. Hence, the Complainant had filed this baseless and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing defect. In this context, OP has taken aid of Sec.13(1)(c) of CP Act, 1986 states as “where the Complainant alleges a defect in goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall after obtaining a sample of the goods send it to appropriate laboratory with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, with a view to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.” Hence submits that, in the absence of expert report, the allegations of the Complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in the said laptop miserably fails and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. OP.1 also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in (2002) 3 CPF 92 (NC) in the case of K.L.Arora vs. Groovy Communications for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of Manufacturing defects in the said laptop made in the complaint. OP.1 further submits that, the Complainant ought to have been filed the affidavit of the expert to prove his allegations.  

8. In the instant case, even after taking such contention by the OP.1, the Complainant has not put any extra effort either to file affidavit evidence of the expert or else to examine the expert before this forum. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the OP.1 stating that, unless and until furnishing the expert opinion, it cannot be said that the said laptop is suffering from manufacturing defect. We find there is considerable force in the contention taken by the OP.1. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the complainant is deserves to be dismissed holding that, the complaint is lacking merits. Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

          9. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Looking to the circumstances of the case we direct both parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 04^th day of September 2019)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant dated.29.01.16

Sri.Nataraj.H.P

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP.1 dated.25.11.15

Smt.Spurthi Mouli, Authorized Signatory of OP.1   

Copies of Documents produced by OP.1

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT