Complaint filed on: 07-12-2011
Disposed on: 12-10-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2213/2011
DATED THIS THE 12th OCTOBER 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Mr. Simon Dass
S/o. Dass, aged about 38 years,
Proprietors,
Genesis Logistics,
#30/1, 1st Cross,
Stephens Road Cross,
Frazer Town,
Bangalore.
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Manager,
Hewlett Packard India
Sales Pvt. Ltd,
Office at no.24,
Salapuria Arena,
Hosur main Road,
Adugodi, Bangalore
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to replace the defective laptop or to refund the amount paid by him to purchase the laptop with 18% interest per annum and to pay damages of Rs.25,000=00 and some other relief as deemed fit in the circumstance.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant purchased a Laptop having model no. and product no.HPG 42/356TV/VR69/PA from the OP through their authorized sales dealer M.S.Computer House, #14/2, Kumbaragudi Main Road, S.P.Road Cross, Bangalore on 25-9-2010 by paying a sum of Rs.37,650=00. The warranty for the above said product was an online warranty for the period of one year from the date of purchase and the sales staff of the dealer intimated the complainant that all defects of the product will be covered by the said warranty. The complainant used the Laptop up to the 1st week of July 2011 and thereafter the laptop was not getting switched on and the complainant as per the instruction of the customer care centre of the OP took the laptop to the authorized service center at Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indiranagar, Bangalore and the service executive has informed the complainant that there is liquid found on the PCB and processor and since the warranty is not covered on the said parts, he has to pay a huge sum of Rs.22,500=00 for repairing and replacement of parts. The complainant was shocked to hear that, he has to pay the aforesaid huge amount for no fault of his and sole reason for the damage to PCB and processor was due to manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice of the OP and he was very surprised that a reputed company like the OP has provided him with a defective laptop for which he has to pay a huge amount and has provided deficient service without caring for the customer. The complainant left with no other alternative and exhausted all his options got issued legal notice dated 3-8-2011 to the OP by way of RPAD, that notice was served on the OP, but the OP without complying with the demand made in the legal notice sent a reply notice dated 10-8-2011 asking for sl.no of the product and warranty details of the product. The complainant sent details through his counsel dated 5-9-2011 and inspite of receiving the details and instead of rectifying the defect or replacing the said defective product the OP with malafide intention got issued another untenable reply notice dated 19-10-2011 denying the entire transaction and blaming the complainant for the damage caused to the laptop. Hence, the complainant has no other alternative to approach this forum for suitable remedy. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed objections contending interalia as under:
The OP is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of computers, laptops, printers etc. and they are globally acclaimed for its class and quality. The products manufactured by the OP go through a process of quality inspection before the same is dispatched to the authorized channel partner. The OP is well supported by the excellent authorized channel partner and service centers having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its products manned by qualified and experienced personnel. The service centers provide service, minor repairs, major repairs, spare parts etc. The present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the complaint is an abuse of process of law and the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute, as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The laptop purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop, after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. All the products manufactured by the OP are marketed only after the prototype of the same is being approved by the appropriate authority. The complainant has filed this baseless and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the laptop without having produced any expert opinion. In the absence of an expert report on behalf of the complainant, the forum ought to have directed the complainant to produce an expert’s report in support. The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the user manual as recommended for smooth and better performance of the laptop. The OP relies on the relevant terms and conditions of warranty of the laptop, limitations, user manual etc. HP is not responsible for damage that occurs as a result of complainant’s failure to follow the instructions intended for the HP hardware product. In view of improper maintenance and operational faults on part of the complainant, the warranty ceases to exist and craves leave to rely on the relevant terms and conditions of the warranty at the time of hearing. The OP has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty. Therefore the prayers as made by the complainant for replacement of the laptop or refund of the price with interest are untenable and unsustainable. The service was also satisfactorily in as much as the defects were rectified and the computer system was made operational to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant ought to have kept in mind the well established principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company –vs- DHL Worldwide express courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and conditions, in which he has signed the contract. As per the contention of the complainant the laptop was taken to the service center of the OP M/s. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indiranagar, Bangalore but he has not made the said dealer and service center as parties to the complaint, so the present complaint ought to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. There has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the CP Act with cost. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The OP denies the averments of the complaint in toto; hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, sole reason for the damage to PCB and processor was due to manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice of the OP and the OP has provided him with a defective Laptop and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the
Point no.1, the complainant is not entitled
to any relief as prayed in the complaint
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced 11 documents. On the other hand, one Spurthi Mouli, who being the authorized signatory of the OP has filed her evidence on behalf of the OP and produced no documents. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously.
7. One Simon Dass, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit filed by way of evidence that, he purchased a Laptop having model no. and product no.HPG 42/356TV/VR69/PA from the OP through their authorized sales dealer M.S.Computer House, #14/2, Kumbaragudi Main Road, S.P.Road Cross, Bangalore on 25-9-2010 by paying a sum of Rs.37,650=00. The warranty for the above said product was an online warranty for the period of one year from the date of purchase and the sales staff of the dealer intimated him that all defects of the product will be covered by the said warranty and accordingly he used the Laptop up to the 1st week of July 2011 and thereafter the laptop was not getting switched on and as per the instruction of the customer care centre of the OP took the laptop to the authorized service center at Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indiranagar, Bangalore and the service executive has informed the complainant that there is liquid found on the PCB and processor and since the warranty was not covered on the said parts, he has to pay a huge sum of Rs.22,500=00 for repairing and replacement of parts. He was shocked to hear that, he has to pay the aforesaid huge amount for no fault of him and sole reason for the damage to PCB and processor was due to manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice of the OP and he was very surprised that a reputed company like the OP has provided him with a defective laptop for which he has to pay a huge amount and has provided deficient service without caring for the customer and then he got issued legal notice dated 3-8-2011 calling upon the OP to replace the defective laptop which was still covered under warranty with in 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, the OP did not comply with the demand of the notice evenafter it was served and the OP sent a reply notice dated 10-8-2011 asking for sl.no of the product and warranty details of the product, and he sent details through his counsel, the OP gave another untenable reply denying the entire transaction and blaming him for the damage caused to the laptop. So, he has filed the present complaint, so the complaint be allowed and pass an order as prayed in the complaint.
8. As can be seen from the averments of complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is made explicitly clear that, the complainant has tendered his evidence in conformity with the averments of the complaint. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant, so as to know whether the oral evidence of the complainant is supported by any documentary evidence or not. Document no.1 of the complainant is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s lawyer dated 3-8-2011 addressed to the OP calling upon to replace the defective laptop which is still under warranty within 15 days, failing which, the complainant will be constrained to take legal action against the OP in the Consumer Court. Document no.2 is the copy of reply letter given by the OP dated 19-10-2011 stating that, the problem due to physical damage by liquid spill is not covered as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and they are ready to replace the part on chargeable basis. Document no.3 is the copy of notice of the OP issued to the lawyer of the complainant dated 10-8-2011 asking to furnish Serial number of the product and warranty details of the product. Document no.4 is the copy of the quotation of Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd dated 23-9-2011 for replacement of some parts of the laptop for a sum of Rs.39,719.93. Document no.5 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 25-9-2010 issued by Computer house, Bangalore being the dealer of OP for having purchased the laptop by the complainant for a sum of Rs.37,650=00 without mentioning warranty period of one year from the date of purchase as stated in the complaint and also during the course of evidence of the complainant. Document no.6 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant in the name of Harsha and Co. furnishing two information asked for. Document no.7 is the copy of service call report dated 24-10-2011 issued by Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd in the name of the complainant stating that, found liquid on PCB processor and also key board and they are not covered under warranty and customer collected the laptop without replacement. Next document is the copy document intimating charges of Rs.22,500=00 for removing the liquid found on PCB, processor and Key board. Next document is the copy of statement of account issued by Indian Overseas Bank in respect of Genesis Logistics for having paid Rs.24,240=00 towards purchase of laptop from computer house. Remaining documents are AD cards etc.
9. By making careful scrutiny of the documents of complainant, it is vivid and clear that, the complainant had purchased the laptop from the OP on 25-9-2010 by paying a sum of Rs.37,650=00 and for that the complainant has produced Tax invoice of laptop and his bank statement for having made payment. It is the specific case of the complainant that, he purchased the laptop having one year warranty from the date of purchase, but in the Tax invoice of the laptop produced by the complainant dated 25-9-2010, there is no mention made that the laptop purchased by the complainant on the said date was having one year warranty from the date of purchase. The entire Tax invoice dated 25-9-2010 is ominous silent with regard to particular period of warranty. In the absence of producing any tangible documentary evidence; it is inequitable and unjust to hold on solitary testimony of the complainant that, the warranty period of laptop purchased by him was for one year from the date of purchase. The documents of the complainant as mentioned supra, do not disclose the particular period of warranty in respect of laptop purchased by the complainant on 25-9-2010. So the oral testimony of the complainant that, he purchased the laptop having one year period warranty from the date of purchase is not supported by any documentary evidence. So under the circumstance, we proposed to hold that, the laptop purchased by the complainant was not having one year warranty period as contended by the complainant. Be that as to may be, the complainant has reiterated both in the complaint and during the course of evidence that, sole reason for the damage to PCB and processor was due to manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice. The documents produced by the complainant do not throw any light to effect that, the laptop supplied by OP to the complainant is having manufacturing defect. Having not produced any believable documentary evidence showing the manufacturing defect in the laptop supplied to the complainant, it is superfluous to reiterate on the sworn testimony of the complainant that, the laptop purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect, so he is entitled for replacement. Unless and until, the complainant proves with clear and tangible documentary evidence that, the laptop purchased by him is having manufacturing defects, he is not entitled for replacement. The copies of correspondences made between the parties and service call report dated 24-10-2011 go to revel that in the laptop of the complainant liquid was found on PCB and processor and key board and they are not covered under warranty. So the OP has asked the complainant to repair the laptop by meeting out expenses, but the complainant has refused to pay charges and get the laptop repaired.
10. On careful reading of the case of the complainant on the back ground of documents produced on behalf of the complainant, it is made manifest that, the oral evidence of the complainant that problems in the laptop started well within warranty period and problems in the computer are manufacturing defect is not corroborated by any documentary evidence that apart the complainant has not made dealer and service centre as a OP, in the present case on hand alongwith manufacturer.
11. On the other hand, the OP has stated both in the version and evidence of authorized signatory of the OP that, they are not negligent in attending the problems of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on their part, the laptop of the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect, but the complainant after purchase has mishandled the laptop and brought the same to the authorized service centre for spillage of liquid on the desktop which is not having any warranty and they will replace the parts on payment basis. Unless and until, the complainant has establish with material evidence that, the laptop purchased was defective and there is deficiency of service OP is not entitled for any relief. The material evidence on this aspect is lacking in its credibility, so the complaint be dismissed.
12. Taking material evidence of OP and compare the same with the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made unambiguously clear that, the material evidence of the OP is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant. So looking to the case of the complainant, on the back ground of relevant documents of complainant and material evidence of OP, we are of the view that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has miserably failed to prove with clear and tangible evidence that, the laptop supplied to him was defective laptop, and so he is entitled for replacement, compensation and cost as prayed in the complaint. So in view of paucity of material evidence, we are inclined to come straight conclusion that, the complainant has totally failed to prove this point satisfactorily by placing believable material evidence, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.
13. In view of our negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. So, under the circumstance, both parties shall bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 12th day of October 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
