DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 287 of 25.11.2020

                                      Decided on: 29.7.2024

Sh.Anil Kumar son of Sh.Gobind Ram resident of A-25, Gobind Colony, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala.

Contact No.9592946429,9878691948, Aadhar card No.8186 9071 8896

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Manager, Alpha computers, SCO 170, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.(Haryana).
2. The Marketing Manager, HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24 Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, 123456789123 Adugodi, Banglore-560030.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Mukesh Singla, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.Arun Kaushal, counsel for OP No.2.                       

 ORDER

                                      GAGANDEEP GOSAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Manager, Alpha computers and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant purchased a laptop of HP 15, SDR002TX batch No.CND9222SNZ vide invoice No.AC/19-20/6256 from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- with the assurance of one year warranty at site.
3. That the complainant is facing problem with the said laptop and approached OPs but they did not bother to the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant not only lodged complaint with OPs No.1&2on 25.5.2020 but also sent legal notice upon them on 30.6.2020 but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to appoint a service engineer for service or repair of the laptop and to remove the fault and also to pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
4. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint whereas notice issued to OP No.1 through registered post  did not receive back unserved within the period of 30 days and deemed it to be served. But neither OP No.1 appeared nor filed any written statement and were accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.1.2021.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.2 at the outset it is submitted that H P India Sales Private Limited i.e. OP No.2 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 and is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of laptops, printers, computers, scanners and other IT peripheral component which are globally acclaimed for its class and quality. The products manufactured and marketed by the OP are approved by the appropriate authority which is highest body to certify the IT products.
6. In the preliminary objections it is submitted that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the material facts; that the averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intention. That warranty benefits provided by the OP on the said laptop are for a defined period. It is admitted that the subject laptop is provided with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and the issues reported under the warranty period were resolved and the instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.
7. On merits, it is not denied that the complainant has purchased the laptop in question from the OPs. It is alleged that on receipt of complaint of No Power, in respect of the laptop on 31.1.2020, the service team of the OP promptly attended to the same on 2.2.2020 vide id numbers 5043617587 and 5043681986 and resolved the issue by carrying out repair and replacing the RAM as per terms of the warranty. Thereafter on 30.5.2020 and subsequently during different time intervals, complainant reported Bezel gap issue in the lap top vide case id 5048429431 and various different case id numbers, that on receipt of complaint, the service team of the OP had subjected the laptop for diagnosis, on inspection learnt that multiple parts i.e. back cover, hinges and display bezel were damaged, the service team escalated for the issue to engineering team for damage coverage but as the issued reported were due to physical damage caused to the laptop, were not covered under the HP standard warranty, repair, service was not possible as per the warranty policy of the OP and offered the complainant to repair the reported issues on chargeable basis as per the warranty obligation but the complainant did not agree for the same. That the OP has acted in accordance to the warranty obligations and are neither guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In evidence ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered  Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 copy of bill, Ex.C2 legal notice,Ex.C3 postal receipt,Ex.C4 legal notice,Ex.C5 postal receipt and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Girish, authorized signatory alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 copy of board resolution, Ex.OP2 copy of service call report and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The complainant had purchased HP Lap Top 15S-DR002TX from OP No.1, for a consideration of Rs.59,000/- as per invoice dated 29.9.2019,Ex.C1.The complainant has alleged that there was a problem in the laptop and he approached the OPs for the repair of the same on 25.5.2020 as the laptop was within the warranty period. However, no action was taken by the OPs. Legal notices Exs.C2 and Ex.C4 were also served on OPs No.1& 2 respectively  which were not even replied to by the OPs. The complainant has as such prayed that the laptop in question be repaired as the same is within warranty period and has also prayed for the compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
12. The OPs in their written statement and affidavit, Ex.OPA of Sh.Girish, authorized signatory of H.P. India (P) Ltd. have submitted that the OPs are a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is also submitted that OP No.2 is a Global Renowned manufacturer of various types of laptops, printers, computers, scanners etc. and are acclaimed for  class and quality of the products. The products manufactured by the OPs passed through stringent quality control & checks before the actual production of the material. As an exclusive warranty is provided on the product so manufactured by the company and the complaints of the consumers if any are promptly dealt with by the company. The OPs have agreed regarding the purchase of the laptop by the complainant. The OPs have submitted that the complainant had reported for no power issue  in respect of the laptop on 31.1.2020 and 2.2.2020 i.e. after four months from the date of the purchase of the laptop vide case ID No.5043617587 and  5043681986. It is submitted that  the complaint was promptly attended to by the service team of the company and after diagnosis, the RAM of the laptop was replaced. The laptop was kept under observations and was delivered to the complainant after the working of the laptop was found to be satisfactory. Subsequently, the complainant reported for bezel gap issue on 30.5.2020 and at different time and intervals and finally on 6.9.2020 as per service call report No.5048842045 as per Ex.OP2. On receipt of the complaint a service team of the OPs subjected the laptop to diagnose and on inspection it was observed that multiple parts i.e. back cover, hinges and display bezel were damaged. The matter was reported to the engineering team of the OPs and as the issues reported were due to the physical damage to the laptop and which are not covered under warranty, as such the complainant was offered for repair of laptop on payment basis which was not accepted by the complainant.
13. The OPs in para no.7 and 9 of the affidavit of Mr.Girish have submitted that with a view to reach at an amicable settlement an offer was made to the complainant to replace the damaged parts i.e. back cover, hinges and display bezel free of cost but the same was refused by the complainant. The OPs have submitted that they are ready to resolve the issues in the  laptop by replacing the damaged parts free of cost and the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs for the same. The OPs have as such prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
14. We have gone through the rival submission of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, carefully.
15. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the laptop in question from the OPs for a consideration of Rs.59,000/- as per Ex.C1.As per the admission of the OPs the RAM of the laptop was replaced when the matter was reported to the OPs on 31.1.2020 and 2.2.2020.This issue has not been touched by the complainant in his complaint. Subsequently the complainant reported for bezel gap issue on 30.5.2020 vide case ID No.5048429431 and finally on 6.10.2020 as per case ID No.5048842045,Ex.OP2. As per the inspection note the diagnose of the laptop was done and back cover, right side hinge and front bezel were found to be in physically damaged condition. Initially the complainant was offered for the repair of the laptop on chargeable basis as the physical damage was not covered under the warranty. However, subsequently the OPs offered the complainant for repair of the laptop free of cost in order to reach at an amicable settlement.
16. We are of the opinion that the laptop was damaged physically. As such initially repair was denied by the OPs as physical damage was not covered under warranty and offer was made to repair the laptop on chargeable basis. However, it is also a fact that OPs have offered to repair the laptop without any cost which was not accepted by the complainant. We therefore, partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to repair the laptop of the complainant and make the same in working condition within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter also if any other defect is noted by the complainant in the laptop within six months from the receipt of the laptop after repair, the OPs are directed to repair the same without any cost. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
17. The Instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President