Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1448/2009

Inderbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajay Khanna - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - I Plot No 5- B, Sector 19 B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160 019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1448 of 2009
1. Inderbir Singhson of Sh. Darshan Singh VPO Sh. Hargobindpur Teh. Batala Distt. Gurdaspur ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Ajay KhannaOzone Computers SCO 34 1st Floor Sector-20/C Chandigarh2. H.P.Authorized Service Centre SCO 121-123 Sector-34/A 3rd Floor ChandigarhUT ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 08 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh.Ajay Khanna, OP No.1 in person.

Sh.Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

 

                The complainant purchased one Compacq Presario Laptop 797 VU, from OP No.1 on 4.11.2008 vide invoice Ann.-A having warranty of one year.  The Laptop started giving problems soon after its purchase. It is averred that Its Touch Pad sensitivity was decreased and it developed some problem in its Lanport as well as DVD Writer.  Moreover, the Laptop was not working upto mark as was assured.  Accordingly, complainant took his laptop to OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre, as advised by OP No.1 and give it for repair vide Ann.-B.   OP No.2 removed the defects in the Lanport and DVD Writer but did not remove the problem in the Touch Pad of the laptop. As such, complainant took the laptop to OPs No.1 & 2 a number of times and requested them to remove the problem of Touch Pad in the Laptop but they ultimately refused to do so.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot. 

2]             OP No.2 filed reply and admitted that OP No.1 is authorized dealer of HP branded laptops manufactured by OP No.2 and that answering OP No.2 is the authorized service centre owned by Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited Company.  It is also admitted that laptop of the model purchased by the complainant was given one year warranty.  It is stated that all the defects so reported by the complainant in his laptop were rectified to his entire satisfaction and the laptop was working fine.  It is stated that after the lapse of one year warranty period, the laptop cannot be repaired free of cost.  Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost. 

3]             On behalf of OP No.1 Sh.Ajay Khana appeared but he did not filed any reply.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5]             We have heard the complainant, OP No.1 and ld.Counsel for the OP No.2 and have perused the record.    

6]             It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased one Compacq Presario Laptop 797 VU, from OP No.1 on 4.11.2008 vide invoice no. OC/RETAIL/421 (Ann.-A), with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. It is his grouse that after few months of its purchase, two defects developed in the said laptop firstly there was a problem in Lanport as well as in the DVD Writer and the second major defect occurred was that the Touch Pad sensitivity was decreased due to which it stopped functioning properly within its warranty period only. It is his grouse that OP-2 rectified the first defect of lanport as well as of DVD writer but till date the second major defect of  Touch Pad sensitivity remained in the laptop and was not rectified by OP-2, till date. Annexure B is the job sheet which shows that the defect in the above said laptop occurred during the warranty period.

7]             From the above facts it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs because when the complainant visited the OP-2 for the repair of the said laptop they refused to rectify the second defect which was the major defect even though it was  within the warranty period.  The act of the OPs, in not repairing the laptop within warranty period was totally unfair, unjust and amounts to unfair trade practice. 

8]             Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances placed before us, we direct the OP-2 to rectify the said major defect of Touch Pad sensitivity without any charges and return the same to the complainant by making it fully functional after effecting necessary repairs within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. However it is made clear if there is any other defect besides the touch pad sensitivity, the complainant has to pay according to the terms and conditions of the OP company because the warranty period for the product in question was valid only for one year from the date of purchase i.e. 4.11.2008 to 3.11.2009 and after the lapse of warranty, if any other defect developed in the laptop cannot be repaired free of cost. The OPs shall jointly pay Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation within the aforesaid period failing which they would be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e 28.10.2009, till the costs of litigation is paid or actually paid to the complainant.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

 

 

 

 


DR. MADHU BEHL, MEMBERHONABLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT ,