Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/517/2015

Mr. Navrang Pathania - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager HCL Infosytems Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/517/2015
Date of Institution	:	06/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	18/07/2016

 

Mr. Navrang Pathania resident of House No.432-A, Sector 29A, OCF Estate, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd. (Corporate Office), E-4, 5 & 6, Sector-11, Noida-201301 (UP).

2.     Mr. Maninder, HCL Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd. (Local Office) SCO No.66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

3.     Mr. Parvinder Singh, North India Computers, SCO 52, First Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

4.     Proprietor, G.K. Enterprises (HCL Exclusive Store), SCO No.52, Sector 20-C, Computer Market, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. N.P. Sharma, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OPs 3 & 4 ex-parte.

 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Navrang Pathania, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), praying for replacement of his personal computer (PC) or refund of its cost and also compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a Central Govt. employee, obtained a loan of Rs.30,000/- from his department to purchase a personal computer for his personal use. The complainant purchased one all in one personal computer from OP-4 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- vide cash memo dated 21.8.2013 and the same was having warranty of 9 months from the date of purchase. After the warranty period, in the first week of September 2014, there was a defect in the computer and the complainant took it to OP-3 for repair on payment basis. On 14.9.2014, Mr. Parvinder Singh an authorised engineer of the HCL checked the computer and told that the motherboard has got defective and sought time to arrange the new one.  However, after one week when the complainant approached him again, he told that he was unable to bring the motherboard and advised to get the computer repaired from some private repair shop.  At this, the complainant went to some private computer repair shop/lab, but, its owner also failed to make available the motherboard. Thereafter the complainant even contacted Mr. Maninder, Area Manager of HCL Infosystems Ltd. who assured him to solve his problem, but, after five months he also refused to provide any assistance.  Ultimately the complainant came to know that the HCL company has stopped production of that particular model that is why the spares were not available in the market.  Hence, this complaint praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

2.         OPs 1 & 2 resisted the claim of the complainant talking the preliminary objection that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and as such liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that after the expiry of the warranty period, the liability of OPs 1 & 2 stood extinguished with the efflux of time on 20.5.2014. It is pleaded that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the PC is a very quickly upgradable device i.e. on account of the fast and ever changing developments in the world of electronics, every component developed, implemented and sold in personal computers tends to get phased out or becomes redundant in a short span of time, thus the components have a “End of Life Cycle” scenario, meaning thereby that every electronic product tends to get obsolete very soon and at an increasing rate as technology expands and develops and new discoveries bring in better components. It is further pleaded that the motherboard is not manufactured by HCL, but, sourced from a third party manufacturer and its availability is solely dependent on the whims and fancies of the third party manufacturer. Thus, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OPs 3 & 4 did not appear despite due service.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte on 22.1.2016 and 24.11.2015 respectively. 
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs 1 & 2.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
7.         The complainant argued that immediately after the expiry of the warranty period, the PC purchased by him, which has a long life, became defective and its motherboard was required to be replaced.  But, because of the non-availability of the motherboard in the market as well as with the authorised service centre, the said PC could not be got repaired. He argued that it was the duty of the OPs to provide the spare parts of the PC so that in case of any defect, in future, the same could be got repaired.  He further argued that since the motherboard was not available with the authorised service centre of the OPs, so the OPs are deficient in services and, as such, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the PC or refund of its price and damages.
8.         On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs 1 & 2 argued that after the expiry of the warranty period, the liability, if any, of the OPs stands extinguished by the efflux of time. After the warranty period, there was no contract between the complainant and the OPs. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Neither the complainant is a consumer nor the OPs are service providers and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9.         Admittedly, the complainant purchased the PC in question, but, there was no complaint in it during the warranty period.  After the expiry of the warranty period, there was defect in the PC and the complainant approached the authorised service centre of the OPs who advised him that the motherboard needs to be replaced, but, the authorised centre could not replace the motherboard because of its non-availability and even the complainant failed to get his PC repaired from the local market as the motherboard required for the PC was also not available in the market. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present complaint, the PC in question has been repaired by the OPs on receipt of the required payment.  Now the PC is in working order to the satisfaction of the complainant. The only question which requires determination in this case is as to whether after the expiry of the warranty period, there was any contract between the complainant and the OPs to provide the spare parts to the complainant in case his PC goes out of order?
10.         It is admitted case of the complainant that the warranty period of the PC had already expired and during the warranty period there was no complaint. In case there is guarantee or warranty then there is a contract between the purchaser and seller to replace or rectify the goods, but, where the guarantee or warranty period expires, the contract between the purchaser and seller of goods comes to an end. After the warranty period, there is no contract between the purchaser and the seller. Since the warranty period had already expired, so the complainant was left with no right to ask the OPs to provide him the spare parts for the computer nor the OPs have any liability to provide the spare parts to him in the market.  In case of automobiles, the position is different because in that case life of a vehicle is much longer than the electronic goods. Nowadays in the electronic goods, particularly PCs, there is rapid upgradation.  Hardly any model lasts for six months in the market after which that model is replaced by a new one with a new device. On account of the fast and ever changing developments in the world of electronics, every component developed, implemented and sold in PCs tends to get phased out or becomes redundant in a short span of time.  In such a situation, the dealer or the manufacturer cannot be asked to store the electronic or PC goods or its spare parts for the purpose of repair of the PCs or electronic goods which were sold, but, have outlived its warranty period.  The position of automobile industry is different than these electronic goods.  In case there is upgradation in the PCs or the mobile phones, then no one likes to purchase the old model.  As such, in such a situation, it cannot be expected from the manufacturers or the dealers to retain the spare parts in its store.  The contract between the complainant and the OPs had already come to an end. It is good luck of the complainant that now the PC has been repaired. He cannot be allowed to say that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not providing the motherboard because in the fast and ever changing developments in the world of electronics, the OPs cannot survive in the business if they will store the old items or parts of electronic goods like PC. To survive in the market, the dealers or the manufacturers have to keep pace with the developments and technology.  Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs can only be attributed if any contract between the complainant and the OPs is infringed and the terms and conditions are violated.  There was no warranty or guarantee by the OPs that the PC will last long for so many years even after the warranty period. 
11.         Since there was nine months warranty and the complainant knew that after nine months, he would be keeping the PC at his own risk and responsibility, so there was no implied contract also imposing liability on the OPs to provide the spare parts.  In daily life some time we have to throw the electronic goods after they become out of order and cannot be repaired because of non-availability of the spare parts.  In case a liability is imposed on the OPs, then it will not be possible for the OPs and every manufacturer or dealer in electronic goods to survive in the fast changing industry of electronics. Once a specific warranty period was provided, the principle of Corpus Juris Secundrum is not applicable nor does the same comes to the rescue of the complainant.  Reliance can be placed on the judgement in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) wherein it was observed that what is relevant in the case at hand is that the warranty conditions were specially stated and this is not a case of silence of a contract of sale as to warranty. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing replacement of the vehicle.
12.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, the consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/07/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President