Tamil Nadu

Vellore

CC/10/20

V.Arun Jaya Immanuel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Hewlett Packard India Sales ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.R.Ramanan

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               Filed on           :   29.06.2010

                                                                                                                              Disposed   on:    29.04.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

    PRESENT:  THIRU. P. RAMALINGAM, B.A., B.L.,                                   PRESIDENT                   

                                     THIRU. S. SIVALINGOM, M.A. M.Com., M.Ed., M.Phil.,

                                                      M.L.M., M.B.A., B.G.L.,                                   MEMBER -I  

                                             

C.C. No. 20 / 2010

WEDNESDAY, THE DAY OF 29^th   APRIL - 2015

 

 

1.  V. Arun Jaya Immanuel,

     S/o. Late. M. Velu,

2.  Mrs. Amsaveni Velu,

     W/o. Late M. Velu,

     Both residing at No. 5/192, MC Road,

     Peryangkuppam, Ambur,

     Vellore District.                                                                                     …Complainants

                                                                               - Vs -

1. Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd.,

    Represented by its Manager,

    No. 24, Salarpuria Arena,

    Adugodi, Hosur Road,

    Banglore – 30.      

 

2. Maha Electronics Private Ltd.,

    Represented by its Manager,

    Jeypore Hall,

    No. 241, Peter Road,

    Royapettah,

    Chennai – 86.

 

3. Maha Electronics Private Ltd.,  

    Represented by its Manager,

    AD#83, 2^nd Floor, Raj Towers,

    5^th Avenue,  Anna Nagar,

    Chennai – 40.

 

4. Sri. A.J.&Co., Represented by its Manager

    No. 63, G, Bye – Pass Road,

    Ambur – 635 802.                                                     … Opposite parties

 

              This petition came up before us for final hearing on 06.04.2015 in the presence of Thiru. M.R. Ramanan, Counsel for the Complainants and Thiru. G. Giridharan Counsel for the Opposite party-1, and Thiru. S. Prakash, Counsel for the Opposite Party – 4, and the Opposite Parties - 2 & 3  were  Set Exparte  having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru.P. Ramalingam, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

The Case of the complainants is briefly as follows:-

1.         The Complainant No. 1  approached Opposite party- 4 for purchasing a Laptop for his education purpose and  placed an order for purchasing HP Pavilion Laptop computer and Opposite Party No.4 quoted a price of Rs.48,600/-.    On taking hand loan from others through his grand-mother, the complainant No. 1 paid the above sum of Rs.48,600/- to Opposite Party No.4, for which he was issued with Cash Bill No. 4986 on 12.1.2009 and Opposite Party No.4 delivered the Laptop to the Complainant on the same day, Model dv5 – s/n : CNF 8383258 / p/n : FZ 728FA#ACJ.  The Opposite Party No.4 gave the original warranty card stating that it covers one year against any manufacturing defects and other conditions stipulated therein.    During the first week of November 2009 the Complainant No. 1 could not use the Laptop, since it failed to Boot.   The Complainant No. 1 after repeated phone calls to Opposite Party No.3 about the status of the Laptop, the Opposite Party No.3 returned the Laptop without doing any repairing work on 13.01.2010 and informed that since the warranty had lapsed. The actions of Opposite party No.1 in selling a defectively manufactured Laptop and the actions of the Opposite Parties No. 2,3 & 4 in failing to honour their respective commitments amount to deficiency in service.  Despite of the repeated demands, Opposite party No.4, refused to return the original bill as well as warranty card till date.    The 1^st Complainant caused issue of notice dated 21.02.2010 though his Advocate calling upon Opposite Party No.1 to provide a new Laptop with same configuration for having sold a defectively manufactured Laptop and failing to honour the warranty terms.   Hence the Complainants are constrained to file this complaint before this Forum seeking the directions to direct the Opposite party No. 1 to provide a new laptop of the same or equivalent configuration or alternatively to refund the amount of Rs.48,600/- with interest of 12% till refund.  To direct the Opposite Parties No. 2&3 to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- and the Opposite party No. 4 to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant all with 6% interest & costs, until the date of payment.  Such other orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The brief averments in the Written Version  filed by the 1^st Opposite Party  are as follows:

2.         The present complaint has been filed without any basis, lack of bona fides and therefore liable to be dismissed in limini.  The Opposite Party No.1 denies each and every averments and allegations made in the Complaint save in so far and to the extent specifically admitted herein by the Opposite Party No. 1 and puts the Complainants to strict proof of each and every allegation made therein,  The products of this Opposite Party usually comes  with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase, accordingly the product purchased by the Complainant also carried warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and the same has been expired on 30.10.2009.  The Opposite Party No. 4 is only the authorized dealer of this Opposite Party No.1 as such he could have instructed the complainant to approach the Opposite Party No. 2, the authorized service center of this opposite party for the services.  Rest of the averments of the Para are denied as the same are not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party No.1 the warranty period for the product in question was valid for one year from the date of purchase and the same has been lapsed, the Complainants are aware of the fact that after the lapse of the warranty the laptop cannot be repaired free of cost.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of this Opposite Party No. 1 as alleged by the complainants during the warranty period of one year, the Complainants never brought any complaint before the Opposite Party No.1 and hence it can be presumed that no problem was faced by the complainants during the warranty period.  The Complainants are trying for an unjust enrichment and trying their luck by this present Complaint and the claim is totally unfair and false.    The Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this preliminary ground itself.  The present Complaint has been filed just to harass this Opposite Party No.1.   Therefore it is prayed that the Complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs as no cause of action arises against the Opposite Party No.1.

The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  4^th opposite party are as follows:

3.           The complaints as against this opposite party claiming damages of Rs. 50, 000/- with interest and cost is not sustainable either in law or on facts.  It is true that the first complainant purchased H.P.Pavilion Laptop from this opposite party on 12.01.2009.  As admitted by the complainant he was issued with cash bill containing description of the product and the model with No.  This opposite party also gave the original warranty card.  But the allegations in para 5 of the petition that during the 1^st week of November 2009, the complainant sent his acquaintance  S. Siva to this opposite party for rectifying the alleged fault in the laptop and this opposite party took the laptop and kept the same with him for 10 days with the  original warranty card and bill are absolutely false and baseless.  Likewise further allegations that this opposite party did not hand over the original bill and warranty card but promised to forward them to opposite party No.2 is not only false but also imaginary invented for the purpose of this complaint.  The laptop purchased by the complainant is a coveted brand manufactured according to high international standard.  The 1^st opposite party ensures that there is no manufacturing defect in its product and sells with one year warranty.  There is absolutely no chance for any manufacturing defect in the laptop.  This opposite party purchased the laptop from popular computers, Vellore as per invoice / Delivery Challan No. 1965 dated 25/12/2008.  The said popular computers was supplied with this laptop through dealer.  Jai Info Tech, Vellore as per invoice No. 346 dated 25/12/2008.  At the time when the laptop was sold to the complainant it was in a good condition.  The customer care center for the opposite party No.1 is appointed at various towns and cities.  The complainant failing to understand that this opposite party was not at fault brought a group of rowdies to the opposite party shop and man handled the proprietor.  For that only the opposite party had to lodge a complaint to the Ambur Police Station.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.  Therefore the claim for damages as against this opposite party is not sustainable.  It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint and pass necessary orders.

4.         Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainants and written version filed on the side of the Opposite Parties 1 & 4.  Proof  affidavit of the complainants 1 & 2 were filed.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties  1 & 4 filed.   No Documents were filed on the side of Opposite Parties 1 & 4.  Written Arguments Filed on the side of the complainants,   Opposite Parties 2 & 3 were Set  Exparte.

5.  Now the points for consideration are:

• Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

• Whether the complainants  are  entitled to the relief’s sought for?

 

 

 

6. Point  (a)       On perusal   of the contents of the Complaint filed by the complainants, the averments of the written version filed by the opposite parties, the evidence and the documents filed on the side of both the parties, it is no doubt that the complainants purchased the Laptop from the Opposite Party No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 48,600/-.   It is very clear that there is defect in the Laptop.  It is no doubt that the Opposite parties No. 2&3 attended the repairing works.  It is admitted that Opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer  of the Laptop .

7.         It is contended by the Opposite parties that the Laptop is in good condition.  But it is seen from the evidence of the complainants that the Laptop was handed over to Opposite Parties  2&3 for repairing works.  In spite of sufficient opportunities given to Opposite parties No.2&3, they have failed to appear before this Forum.  Hence Opposite Parties – 2&3 are Set Exparte.  It is presumed that nobody can make false allegation against anybody without any basis.  It is no doubt that the opposite party No. 4 is the seller and the  Complainants are the buyers.  On perusal of evidence of both the parties it is very clear that there is no previous enemity between the complainants (buyers) and the seller (Opposite party No. 4).  Since Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the Laptop, he is also liable along with his seller (Opposite Party No. 4).   Since Opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the Laptop, he is liable for the loss caused to the buyer along with the seller (Opposite party No. 4). 

8.         Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clearly established the facts that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the Forum has come to a conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint.

9. Point No.(b)         In the result the Complaint is allowed by directing the Opposite Parties – 1 & 4 either to replace the Laptop or to return back the purchase amount of Rs. 48,600/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Only) to the Complainants by taking back the Laptop from the Complainants, and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards the cost of proceedings.P

            The amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the data of default to till the date of payment.

Dictated directly by the President to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th April’ 2015.

 

Sd/-                                                                                                                             Sd-

MEMBER–I                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of  Complainants :Documents:

Ex.A1.  Dated: 12.01.2009    -  Xerox Copy of the Cash Bill given by the Opposite Party No. 4

Ex.A2.  Dated: 14.11.2009    -  Xerox Copy of Service call Report given by Opposite party No. 2

Ex.A3.  Dated:17.11.2009     -  Xerox  Copy of Service call Report given by Opposite party No. 3

Ex.A4.  Dated:21.02.2010     -  Original  Copy of  Notice issued to Opposite Parties through                 

                                                  Advocate  

                                                                                                

Ex.A5.    -           -                  -   Four Postal Acknowledgements  received from the Opposite

                                                  Parties

 

Ex.A6. Dated: 26.07.2011     -   Deccan Chronicle Newspaper, Chennai Edition

 

List of  Opposite Parties - 1 & 4  Documents:        - Nil -

Sd/-                                                                                                                             Sd/-

MEMBER–I                                                                                                             PRESIDENT