State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shrey Khurana vs Reliance Retail Ltd. on 25 February, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 211 of 2019 Date of Institution 23.09.2019 Date of Decision 25.02.2022 Shrey Khurana S/o Sh. Sanjeev Khurana, R/o H.No.1185, Aryan New Light Society, Sector 51, Chandigarh. .....Appellant/Complainant Versus Reliance Retail Ltd., Elante Mall, Shop No. 247, Second Floor, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its authorized signatory. Reliance Retail Ltd., Corporate Park, C/o Relene Petro Chemicals Limited, Dhansoli, Thane - 400701, through its Managing Director. Riddhiman, HP Trusted Advisor, India Customer Support, Personal System HP Inc., Crown Plaza Surya, E-F, P.C. 110065, New Delhi, Haryana. (Deleted vide order dated 8.12.2017/13.11.2019). Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuuria Arena, Adugodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka. .....Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the Appellant.
Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 & 2.
Respondent No.3 deleted vide order dated 13.11.2019.
Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.7.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh, now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
In brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Laptop make HP Pavilion Notebook 15-ab21TX ALL on 25.12.2015 for Rs.50,700/- vide invoice dated 27.12.2015 from Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure C-1), manufactured by Opposite Party No.4, along with inbuilt warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It was stated that the product was purchased alongwith extended warranty for a period of one year on the payment of Rs.3199/- effective from 25.12.2016 to 24.12.2017. It was further stated that the complainant noticed a crack on the body of the Laptop on 22.03.2016 and immediately lodged a complaint with HP Support Centre, thereafter a Representative/Technical Support of HP contacted the complainant and personally checked the Laptop which was found to be broken on the side and conveyed to the complainant that as the same was under warranty, it would be replaced. It was further stated that the complainant received a call from the HP Support Centre, advising him to claim the replacement under warranty through Reliance Retail Limited (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) through whom the product was purchased and the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 as per advice given to him, but to no avail and subsequently, a legal notice (Annexure C-2) was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that they are engaged in retail sale of various products including the Laptop HP Pavilion Note Book manufactured by various manufacturers including Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Limited (Opposite Party No.4). It was further stated that the Opposite Party No.4 is providing all after sales services to the products manufactured by it through its authorized service centers only and answering Opposite Parties have no role to play therein. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
As per the endorsement made by the Counsel for the Complainant, on the order sheet dated 18.10.2017, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted by the learned District Commission from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 08.12.2017.
The Opposite Party No.4 filed its separate reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case, stated that it was not within its knowledge that complainant had got the warranty extended for a period of one year on payment of Rs.3199/-. The Opposite Party No.4 is not responsible or liable if the warranty was extended by the Opposite Party No.1 in its independent capacity. It was further stated that as per records, the warranty provided to the Laptop was for a period of one year from the date of purchase i.e. start date was 27.12.2015 and end date 26.12.2016. It was further stated that the complainant had lodged the first complaint with the Customer Care Centre of answering Opposite Party on 22.03.2016 reporting crack on the body of the Laptop and on receipt of the complaint, the Service Team of the answering Opposite Party attended the Complaint lodged promptly and after inspection it was found that the issue reported was caused due to the physical damage which was considered to be a customer induced damage and not covered under the terms and conditions of warranty. It was further stated that the complainant was informed that the issue reported cannot be fixed free of cost and he was offered resolution of the issue on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty, but the Complainant failed to agree for the services offered on chargeable basis and insisted on the replacement of the Laptop. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
The Parties led evidence, in support of his case.
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
On a perusal of the learned District Commission records, we find that the Customer Care Centre of the respondents received a complaint on 22.03.2016 regarding crack on the body of the laptop. The service team of the respondents inspected the laptop and found that the reported crack was caused due to physical damage, which is considered as a customer induced damage. The respondent stated that that the said damage was not covered under the terms of the warranty and laptop was also not registered under the accidental damage plan. Further, we find that the appellant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence that the said accidental damage was covered under the terms of the warranty. The respondents as a matter of goodwill had also offered to resolve the issue on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty, but the appellant did not agree for the same. In our eyes, we find that the order passed by the learned District Commission is to be upheld and accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
25.02.2022 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Sd/-
[RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER Gp