DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 54 of 2015 Date of Institution: 10.02.2015 Date of Decision: 07.12.2015.
Pooja Arora D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora, R/o H.No.94, Gali No.1, Rao Mohar Singh Marg, New Basti, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd, 24, Salarpuria Arina, Howsar, Main Road, Adhugodi, Bangalore-560030.
- H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd, Building No.2, DLF, Cyber Green, 1st to 5th Floor, Tower D & E, Phase-3, Gurgaon.
- M/s Jabil Global Services, India Pvt. Ltd (A Jabil Company), Ground Floor, Vatika City Point, M.G.Road, Gurgaon-122001.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Pooja Arora complainant in person.
Sh. Rajiv Kaushik, Adv for the opposite party No.1 & 2
OP-3 exparte.
ORDER JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she has purchased a H.P. Pavilion Laptop bearing Model No.15N205TX Note Book from The Laptops, Red Cross Market, Hisar vide invoice No.TL/2014-15/008 dated 07.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.36,500/- manufactured by opposite party no.1 After purchase of two months the Laptop started giving trouble like hanging and after three months the problem in the window also appeared. She brought the Laptop to the service centre i.e. OP-2 on 23.12.2014 and it was handed over to her after fifteen days of its deposit but after two days of its repair it again started giving the same problem. She again taken the same to the service centre on 21.01.2015 and it was handed over to her on 03.02.2015 but the position remained the same. She again requested the opposite party No.2 to get the same repaired but OP-2 has flatly refused to repair the same though it was under warranty. Thus, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their party. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.36,500/- with expenses incurred by her. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the Service Call Report dated 23.12.2014 Ex.C-1, another Service Call Report Ex.C-2 and Retail Invoice dated 07.04.2014 Ex.C-3.
2 OP-1 & 2 have alleged in their joint written reply that Laptop in question was purchased on 16.04.2014 and first complaint was lodged on 24.12.2014 for hanging issue which was diagnosed by the service centre and the issue was resolved by reinstalling operating system and was returned to the complainant on 07.01.2015. In case the downloading applications contains virus, the same will be affecting the functioning of the Laptop for which the manufacturer is not liable. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3 OP-3 failed to turn up despite service and it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.05.2015.
4 We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and have perused the record available on file carefully.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that she purchased a Laptop manufactured by OP-1 for a sum of Rs.36,500/- with a warranty of one year. However, it started giving troubles after two months of its purchase. She brought the same to the Service Centre on 23.12.2014 and it was returned after 15 days but after two days it again started giving the hanging problem and she again brought the same to the OP-2 on 21.01.2015 and this time it was returned to her on 03.02.2015 but the position remained the same and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6 However, the contention of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the Laptop in question was brought to the service for the first time on 23.12.2014 i.e. after more than 8 months. As and when it was brought to the service centre it was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
7 However, OP-3 remained exparte as it failed to appear before this Forum to contest the claim of the complainant.
8 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances and evidence on file it emerges that the complainant has purchased the Laptop manufactured by OP-1 from Hisar vide invoice dated 07.04.2014 (Ex.C-3) for a sum of Rs.36,500/- with a warranty of one year. However, within the warranty the Laptop in question started giving trouble and it was brought to the service centre on 23.12.2014 and 21.01.2015 (Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3) respectively but the problem in the laptop remained the same. From the perusal of the Service Call Report (Ex.C-2) it is clear that the complainant has specifically mentioned that she has already submitted the Laptop to the service centre four times. Thus, it appears that the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defect in the laptop as she has been visiting the service times time and again. Thus, non rectification of the defect in the Laptop by the service centre of the manufacturer tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9 Since the complainant has been approaching to the opposite parties for rectification of the defect in the Laptop, therefore, it seems that the defects are not rectifiable as the problem is still persisted in the Laptop after repeated rectification. Therefore, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. Therefore, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the Laptop in question with a new one of the same model or to refund its price. However, the complainant shall deposit the old defective Laptop to the opposite parties. She is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite parties shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced in open court (Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
07.12.2015 Member Member
