State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anuj Ahuja vs Pentagon Automation-01 on 9 August, 2007
CC
CC. No: 312/2007
Filed on 17.02.2007
Disposed on 09.08.2007
BEFORE THE III
ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DIST.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE 560 052
DATED
THIS THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST 2007
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 312/2007
PRESENT:
Sri N. Srivathsa Kedilaya, B.A. B.L.,
PRESIDENT
Smt.
Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Anuj Ahuja,
Senior Software Engineer,
DELL INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., No.12/1,
12/2A, 13/1A,
Divyashree Greens, Koramangala Inner Ring
Road, Domlur Post, BANGALORE 560 071.
(Rep. by Ms. Shashikala K.N., Advocate,
Bangalore)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES -
1.
The Proprietor,
PENTAGON AUTOMATION-01,
No.100, Mezannine
Floor,
Money Terrace,
(Opp. KSRTC Corp. Office), K.H. Road, (Double Road),
BANGALORE 560
027.
2.
Sri T. Ravirajan,
Channel Support
Manager South,
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,
No.777E, 100 Ft
Road,
HAL 2nd
Stage, Indiranagar,
BANGALORE 560
038.
3.
HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,
No.777E, 100 Ft
Road,
HAL 2nd
Stage, Indiranagar,
BANGALORE 560
038,
By its Managing
Director.
(OP No.1 remained
absent.
OPs 2 & 3 are
represented by
M/s Harsha &
Co., Advocates, Bangalore)
O R D E R
Speaking through Smt. Dr. Subhashini, Member
1. (a) This Complaint is filed on 17.2.2007 u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: The Complainant purchased a Laptop to work at home according to his mobility, comfort and convenience from the 1st Opposite Party on 31.3.2006. The model of the Laptop was HP PAVILION DV 1615 TS having configuration M 735 A with one year Carry in Ltd. Warranty having Sl.No. CNF6081HBV. The Complainant paid Rs.54,601=04 for the Laptop. On the very first day of the purchase of the Laptop, it automatically shutdown within 15 minutes of starting of processor intensive work and the Complainant lost very important work which he had done due to the sudden automatic shutdown of the Laptop without warning and on restarting it, the same problem of sudden automatic shutdown without warning continued. The Complainant contacted the 1st Opposite Party and the problem was explained by the Complainant as Laptop gets automatically shutdown (goes off without warning) while working on the bed and performance degradation while working long even on table. The 1st Opposite Party advised the Complainant to visit 3rd Opposite Party stating that it was hardware problem related and thereafter the Complainant visited the 3rd Opposite Party and met the 2nd Opposite Party with the Laptop. The 2nd Opposite Party asked the Complainant to drop the Laptop for observation of the problem with the 3rd Opposite Party.
The Complainant dropped his Laptop with the 3rd Opposite Party for observation and the 2nd Opposite Party informed him that the CPU fan of the Laptop was not working properly and that it was to be replaced and as there was no stock of CPU fans, it would take 3 to 4 days to get the stock and the Complainant was asked to approach the 3rd Opposite Party after 4 days. Thereafter, the Complainant collected his Laptop from the 3rd Opposite Party on the same day.
(b) The Complainant submits that he requested the 1st Opposite Party to replace the Laptop on 16.4.2006 and the 1st Opposite Party refused to replace the same and advised the Complainant to visit the 3rd Opposite Party. The Complainant dropped the Laptop on 17.4.2006 at the office of the 3rd Opposite Party and the CPU fan was replaced and the Complainant was informed on 19.4.2006 to collect the same. The Complainant collected his Laptop on 19.4.2006. When the Complainant started working on the Laptop on the night of 19.4.2006, he encountered the same problem of sudden automatic shutdown without warning. The Complainant again visited the Office of the 3rd Opposite Party and they changed the Motherboard. Still, the problem persisted. The Complainant again visited the Office of the 3rd Opposite Party on 25.4.2006. When he was informed that BIOS (Basic Input Output System) Driver has to be updated and the Complainant left the Laptop there itself and collected the same in the evening after the Laptop was repaired. When the Complainant started working in the night of 25.4.2006, the Laptop showed the same problem.
(c) The Complainant submits that he informed the 2nd Opposite Party of the problem and the Service Engineer of the 3rd Opposite Party visited the house of the Complainant to check the problem. After confirming the problem of automatic shutdown of the said Laptop, the Service Engineer informed the 2nd Opposite Party and the Complainant was again asked by the 2nd Opposite Party to drop the Laptop at the Office of the 3rd Opposite Party.
The 3rd Opposite Party changed the processor, but the Complainant continued to have the same problem. The 2nd Opposite Party asked the Complainant to drop the Laptop again for observation. Therefore, the Complainant collected the said Laptop, but he faced the same problem. The Customer Service Order dt.5.5.2006 issued by the 3rd Opposite Party with the remark closing the sub-case based on the feedback frustrated, the Complainant who met the 1st Opposite Party and requested him to exchange the Laptop, but, the 1st Opposite Party refused the request of the Complainant and asked him to visit the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party suggested the Complainant to use the Laptop on table.
(d) The Complainant submits that even after using the Laptop on the table, the same problem appeared and on informing the 2nd Opposite Party, an Engineer was sent on 20.5.2006 to the residence of the Complainant to observe the problem faced by the Complainant. The Engineer who visited the house of the Complainant made a note of the observation. The 2nd Opposite Party sent a letter dt.25.5.2006 to the Complainant stating the safety and comfort guide clearly mention that user cannot use the Notebook and soft surfaces like bed and carpet as it will block the air circulation.
(e) The Complainant submits that he made it clear to the 1st Opposite Party when he wanted to purchase a Laptop that he needs to work in a comfortable position after coming from Office and also the Laptop was to be used in Airport, Train, Presentation Halls etc. The 1st Opposite Party advised the Complainant to go for the said Laptop. On that advice, the Complainant purchased the said Laptop from the 1st Opposite Party. But, to his utter dismay, the Complainant found that the purpose of buying the said Laptop was not at all served and on the top of that, he had to waste his time, money and energy in running around the three Opposite Parties and further he lost some of his very important DATA that includes programs/documents/pictures as the hard drive lost partial information after shutting down automatically without warning by over heating and that the Complainant had to restore the entire Laptop Software and he had to rewrite programs/documents/ Pictures which were lost and could not be recovered. The Complainant submits that he has not faced this problem with his previous Laptop Toshiba Satellite, 2000, HP Nx5000, 2005. In the circumstances, the Complainant issued a legal notice dt.14.8.2006 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to refund the total amount of 54,601=04 with interest at 24% from the date of the purchase, till the realization of the said amount together with an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, mental agony and physical strain. The Opposite Parties failed to reply to the notice of the Complainant. In view of the above mentioned facts, the Complainant prays for refund of Rs.1,04,007=13 along with an interest at 24% p.a. from the date of payment, till realization. Along with this, he has sought for a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony, physical strain, loss and damage caused to him.
2. (a) On admission of the case, notice was caused to the Opposite Parties to produce their Version by way of evidence. The 1st Opposite Party neither produced their Version nor there was any representation for him.
Hence, this case has proceeded against the 1st Opposite Party exparte. The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Party have made available their Version on 27.4.2006. In brief it is as hereunder: The 3rd Opposite Party is a Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a technology solutions provider to consumers, business and institutions globally. The Companys offerings are span IT products and infrastructure, global services, business and home computing and imaging and printing. The 3rd Opposite Party manufactures and sells various types of laptops, notebooks and desktops. The Opposite Party No.3 provides after sales Warranty support and service to the users of their products through a chain of authorized service centres. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 admit that the Complainant has purchased a HP Pavilion Laptop 1615 TS. The Complainant visited the Service Centre on 17.4.2006 complaining that the System gets heated up and switches-off automatically. The Service Centre registered the Complaint and resolved the issue by replacing the ICPU fan of the Laptop. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 submits that the Complainant lodged the same Complaint on 25.4.2006 and the Service Centre updated the Basic Input Output System and observed that the Laptop is working fine. The Complainant again lodged a Complaint with the same problem on 16.5.2006 and the Service Centre updated the drivers in the System to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
(b) The 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties deny that the Service Centre replaced the Motherboard in the Laptop as alleged by the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 clarified that the issue of heating reported by the Complainant was only intermittent and also heating was not excessive or abnormal. This was clearly convinced to the Complainant.
Therefore, they are not liable to refund or pay any damage as claimed by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 have prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint with their costs.
3. Since a consumer dispute arose, the parties were called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavits and documents.
The Complainant has produced his affidavit on 23.5.2007 along with some documents. The Opposite Parties have not chosen to produce any evidence as such in the form of affidavits and documents. Ultimately, the matter was heard on merits.
4. In this proceeding, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether the alleged deficiency of service is established?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief in this proceeding?
(iii) What Order?
5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Yes
ii) Yes
iii) As shown in the operative portion of the Order here below.
6. The reasons assigned hereunder would substantiate our findings:
R E A S O N S POINT NO.1: (a) The Complainant is a Senior Software Engineer in a leading Software Company.
The Complainant bought a Laptop from the 1st Opposite Party who is a Dealer for the products of 3rd Opposite Party. According to the Complainant, he bought the Laptop so that he could work in a comfortable position after coming home from the Office. Infact the Complainant wanted a Laptop which will be used at Airport, Train, Presentation Halls etc. Laptop is a small mobile computer. It is so designed to sit on ones lap, hence the name Laptop. According to the Complainant, the 1st Opposite Party advised him to buy the said Laptop. The Complainant has produced the original invoice of the 1st Opposite Party dt.31.3.2006. Under description of goods in that Invoice, it is clearly seen that a HP Pavilion BV 1615 TS was so bought for a sum of Rs.54,601=04. According to the Complainant, from the day of the purchase, the Laptop started getting overheated and used to shutdown automatically. The Complainant could only go to the 3rd Opposite Party as advised by the 1st Opposite Party on 17.4.2006. The Complainant produced the original Customer Service Order dt.17.4.2006 which shows that the Laptop gets heated-up and switches-off automatically. In the same Customer Service Order, it is recited that the CPU fan has been replaced.
As submitted by the Complainant himself, the 3rd Opposite Party replaced the CPU fan to rectify the problem. But, the Complainant continued to face the same problem and he approached the 3rd Opposite Party again on 25.4.2006. The Complainant has produced the original Customer Service Order dt.25.4.2006 in which it is recited in Repair Summary that the OS and BIOS have been reloaded.
Inspite of the same, the Complainant continued to face the same problem. According to the Complainant, inspite of OS and BIOS being reloaded, his problem was not solved and the System continued to get heated-up and automatically switched-off. The Complainant has produced another Customer Service Order dt.25.4.2006 in which the fault description continued to be the same but the Repair Summary shows that the processor has been re-fixed. It is the Complainants stand that inspite of the processor being re-fixed, the System continued to face the same problem.
On 5.5.2006, the Complainant took his Laptop to the 3rd Opposite Party with the same Complaint.
The Complainant has produced the original Customer Service Order issued by the 3rd Opposite Party in which the fault description is recited as unit gets heated up near Touchpad and shuts down automatically. In the same Customer Service Order, the Repair Summary is recited as closing the sub case based on the feedback. The Complainant has produced one more Customer Service Order dt.16.5.2006 in which the fault description remains the same, but under Repair Summary, it is recited No trouble found.
(b) It is the contention of the Complainant that following the last Complaint, the 3rd Opposite Party dispatched an Engineer who visited his house and made a note on the observation. At the back of the original Customer Service Order dt.16.5.2006, there is a handwritten entry by one Mr. Arvind Gokavi. The Complainant does not clarify the status of Mr. Arvind Gokavi.
There is also a picture produced by the Complainant showing 3 Laptops on the bed. According to the observation made by Mr.Arvind Gokavi, the Complainants HP Laptop gets shutdown within 15 minutes. The HP Service Centre Laptop of the same model shuts down in 20 minutes time. The DELL Laptop continued to work even after one hour.
(c) The Opposite Parties have chosen not to comment on the so-called documents produced by the Complainant dt.20.5.2006 in which 3 Laptops were used under the same condition. It is the Complainants stand that his Laptop switches-off automatically after 15 minutes of working. The Complainant received a letter from the 3rd Opposite Party through one Mr. T. Ravirajan, Channel Support Manager South, HP Customer Support Organization in which he confirms that the user cannot use the Notebook on soft surface like bed and carpet as it will block air circulation. We have checked the product thoroughly (using ISPE2) and found to be working satisfactorily in normal surface. This letter by the 3rd Opposite Party makes it clear that they did not want to hear any more of the Complainants problem and that according to them, there was no problem with the Laptop.
(d) Since the Complainant continued to have the same problem, he issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties dt.14.8.2006. The Complainant has produced the postal acknowledgement as a proof of delivery of the legal notice to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. The Opposite Parties did not reply to the notice served by the Complainant.
(e) The Complainant in this case who works in a Software Company is obviously well-versed with the working of a Laptop. When he purchased a Laptop, he was looking for a specific purpose that is, to make it convenient for him to work with comfort at his home. It is not as though the Complainant never worked on a Laptop before. After all, Laptop is designed in such a way that it can be made to work on different surfaces. If the Complainant had to work on a table, then, there was no need for him to buy a Laptop and a Desktop Computer would have been sufficient. But the Complainant bought a Laptop so that it will be used as a Laptop.
Nodoubt, the 3rd Opposite Party is a reputed Company in the business of manufacturing and sale of various types of Laptops, Notebooks and Desktops. They also provide after sale Warranty support and service to the users of its products through a chain of Authorized Service Centres. In this particular case, the Complainant faced problem with his Laptop from the time of purchase as evidenced by the documents produced and he has made numerous visits to the 3rd Opposite Party to set-right his Laptop. From the documents produced, it is obvious that the 3rd Opposite Party has tried several times to set-right the problem of over heating and automatic switch-off touching that Laptop as complained by the Complainant. But they have not succeeded in rectifying the problem.
If the Complainant cannot work more than 15 minutes on his Laptop, then, it is of no use to him. The Opposite Parties should have tried to resolve the problem of the Complainant to his satisfaction. Instead, they tried to wash-off their hands by stating that the Notebook cannot be used on soft surface like bed and carpet as it will block air circulation. If it were true, that Laptop cannot be worked on a bed and then, it is the duty of the 3rd Opposite Party to make sure that the consumer is informed of the same at the time of purchase. The 3rd Opposite Party nodoubt have tried time and again to set-right the Complainants problem, but, according to the Complainant, the defect in the Laptop continues. The letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party dt.25.5.2006 seems like a feeble attempt by them to wriggle out of their responsibility. Significantly, the letter does not comment on the findings as documented by one Mr. Arvind Gokavi in the presence of the HP Engineer.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties in respect of the working of the Laptop in question. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the Complainant.
7. POINT NO.2: (a) As revealed in the evidence, the Laptop in question has seen repairs several times. In the circumstances, there is reason to believe that no better would be served by giving a direction to the Opposite Parties to get the same repaired again. On the other hand, it is but proper to get the same replaced with a Brand new one which is free from any defect.
Further, if for any reason that particular model of Laptop is not available for replacement, then in that event, ends of justice would secure if an Order is made to refund the price of the Laptop in question.
(b) Nodoubt, the Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- by way of compensation for the sufferance and loss to which he was put to on account of the deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties. According to us, that quantification of compensation does not stand to reason. The problem of the Complainant touching that Laptop is that on account of its abrupt and automatic shutdown, he had to loose what has been done or gained through that instrument. However, one thing cannot be lost sight-off. The Complainant himself is a professional in the field. He knows the special feature of that Laptop. That special feature is automatic shutdown. When that is the position, certainly he could have taken recourse to a protective step. He could have certainly stored at intermittent stage without giving long gap and by so storing, he could have certainly minimized the loss. However, from the evidence on record, it is not revealed whether he has taken recourse to that remedial procedure. That apart, apart from his sworn testimony, absolutely there is no other documentary evidence to probabilise the volume of sufferance and loss he was put to on account of the above defect in the said instrument. Ofcourse, he might have expended sufficient money by way of transportation cost etc. Even then, in the fitness of things, what we opine is, a reasonable amount can be fixed by way of compensation instead of the amount so claimed by the Complainant. At this juncture, it is also relevant to borne in mind that the Opposite Parties have imposed this litigation on the Complainant. Wherefore, having regard to the above aspects, we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.10,000/- is fixed by way of cost of litigation and compensation, ends of justice would meet. Accordingly, this point is answered.
8. POINT NO.3: In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R This Complaint is allowed in this way;
The alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties since established, the Opposite Parties are directed to replace the Laptop touching this Complaint with a Brand new one which is free from any defect. If that particular Model or Brand is not available for replacement, then, in that event, the Opposite Parties shall refund the cost of that Laptop which is admittedly Rs.54,601=04 (Rupees fifty-four thousand six hundred and one and four paise) to the Complainant. In addition to the same, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the Complainant by way of cost of litigation and compensation. The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days time from this date to comply this Order. Further, it is clear that the right of the 1st Opposite Party (if any) to proceed against the 3rd Opposite Party in the light of this Order is not disturbed by this Order.
This Order is pronounced on this the 9th Day of August 2007.
Dr. SUBHASHINI N. SRIVATHSA KEDILAYA MEMBER PRESIDENT