Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 474.
Instituted on : 29.08.2012.
Decided on : 22.05.2015.
Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Ram Partap, Shiv Shakti Mobile, Power House, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Proprietor/Partner, Anil & Co., 65 Palika Bazar Rohtak.
- HP Laptop o/o 6th Floor, Tower-D, Global Business Park, M.G.Road, Gurgaon-122002 through its Proprietor/Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Devender Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.1 & 2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had purchased a new HP Laptop 630, Model Number QG631PA for a sum of Rs.25700/- from the opposite party vide bill no.4792 dated 6.9.2011 under a warranty of one year. It is averred that in the first week of April 2012 it was found that there was major defect in the laptop and the same was not working. The complaint was made and heating fan was replaced. It is averred that again the defect appeared in the laptop and the same was removed on 30.04.2012 but it was found that there were major defects and the same were removed 5 times. It is averred that the laptop is not working till now because of defective parts. It is averred that last complaint was made by the complainant on 29.05.2012 and some mechanic of the opposite parties came to the complainant on 2.6.2012 but refused to remove the defect. It is averred that due to the defects in the laptop the complainant suffered loss and the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as the laptop sold by the opposite parties is of no use because of major defects. It is averred that the complainant requested the opposite parties to remove the defects as the same was in warranty period but they refused to pay any heed to his requests. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to remove the defects or to refund the price of Rs.25700/- and also to pay Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony & harassment to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the laptop was purchased by the complainant after proper check up of the same. It is averred that the warranty was for the limited purposes and the warranty can be invoked to that extent only. The complainant cannot claim for the replacement of the laptop on the alleged set of allegations. It is averred that as per the complaint register maintained by the opposite party no.1 there is no such complaint found on behalf of the complainant in the month of April 2012. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the laptop. It is submitted that the warranty is provided by the company and not by the dealer i.e. opposite party no.1. It is averred that the complainant never visited to the opposite party no.1’s shop and never made any complaint so question of visit of any representative of the answering opposite party does not arise. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and as such the same may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has filed the baseless and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the laptop without having produced any expert opinion in the form of evidence from a notified laboratory to prove that the laptop suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. It is averred that the complainant has purchased the laptop on 06.09.2011 from the opposite party dealer and that the job carried out on the laptop in question as per the warranty obligations of the laptop. It is averred that the complainant had reported any issue for the first time with the answering opposite party only in April 2012 which proves that the subject laptop was working perfectly fine and there were no manufacturing defect, whatsoever as otherwise it would have started giving problems from the day of purchase. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question and as such the dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 & 2 in their evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order dated 18.03.2015 of this Forum.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one laptop from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.25700/- on dated 06.09.2011 as is proved from the copy of bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per service job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 the defects in the alleged laptop appeared during the warranty period. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the laptop in question was having manufacturing defects and the same was not repaired/replaced by the opposite parties despite the fact that it was within warranty period. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that the laptop in question had worked smoothly for 7 months which shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question and that no expert report has been placed on file by the complainant.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the documents placed on file it is proved that the defects in the alleged laptop appeared during the warranty period and the same are also admitted by the opposite party no.2 in its reply but as per the opposite party the same were resolved. But as per the contention of complainant the defects were removed 5 times by the opposite parties but the same were not resolved properly and the laptop in question is not working properly and the opposite party refused to remove the defects which proves the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle repeatedly taken to service station for repairs-The manufacturing defect, must be assumed-Onus of proof shifts upon OP, and it is further held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect”, as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Mumbai has held that: “Manufacturing defect-Expert evidence-Principal of res ipsa loquitur-Failure of compressor of the AC within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amount to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied and it is further held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous” and as per 1(2007) CPJ 120 titled Head Marketing and Communication Vs. Ankush Kapoor & Ors. Hon’ble U.T. Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “Handset giving problems from day one/Defects could not be rectified inspite of being repaired twice-Undoubtedly, it suffered from inherent defects- Deficiency in service proved- Forum rightly ordered refund of cost of handset with interest”.
9. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of laptop in question i.e. Rs.27500/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the laptop in question to the opposite parties. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
