BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 63 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 20.04.2018.
Date of Order: 06.03.2019.
Anil Sheoran son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of House No. 139, Chiranjiv Colony, BTM Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani, Mobile No. 9416287292.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Apex Computer Services 37 K.M. Trust Market 1st Floor, Hansi Gate Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani, Mob. No.8950735567.
2. Susnet Global Technologies Pvt. Limited DSB 248, First Floor, Green Square Market, Hisar 125001 Mob No. 01662-240789.
3. Customer Care Executive, HP India Sales Private Ltd. 24, Salapuria Arena, Hosur Main Road Adugodi, Bangalore, 560030 Mob No.1800-425-4999, Email in.contect@hp.com.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the OP No.3.
None for the OP No. 1.
OP No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of complainant’s case are that he has purchased HP 15 AY 085 TU serial No.CND70340DG QC/4GB/1TB/DUS/156 Laptop with on 11.5.2017 vide invoice No. 436 for Rs.24,000/- and one year guarantee/warranty for all type of defects was given. It is alleged that after 2-3 months of its purchase some defect developed in battery of laptop and complaint No.5002147218 dated 17.8.2017 has been lodged with the OPs and the battery was replaced on 3.11.2017. It is further alleged that the Laptop again become defective and complaint No. 5007767337 dated 30.12.2017 was made and the mother board of the Laptop was changed by one Vikram on 6.1.2018. It is further alleged that the Laptop again become defective and complaint of the same was given to OP No. 2, bearing complaint No.50012858544, but the OPs have not repaired the Laptop despite several requests, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 despite service and OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 9.10.2018.
3. On notice, one Shri Sandeep, Proprietor appeared on behalf of OP No. 1 and filed the contested written statement alleging therein that he has sold the Laptop to complainant and the warranty of the same was to be provided by manufacturer as per terms & conditions. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. On notice, OP No. 3 appeared and filed contested written statement alleging therein that the laptop purchased by complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. It is further alleged that on verification of the data base maintained by the answering OP, it was found that the complainant had reported issues in respect of the laptop to the customer care during different time intervals and the service team of the answering OP had resolved the same by carrying out repair and replacing the required parts, as per the terms of the warranty, kept under observation and on confirmation that laptop was working fine as per specifications had delivered the same to the complainant. It is further alleged that it is only the complainant’s apprehension and expectation for refund of the costs of the laptop. It is further alleged that on receipt of the complaint bearing ID No.50012858544, the service team of the answering OP have attended the complaint and found issue with Hard disk, which required replacement, accordingly the OP had offered to replace the hard disk, as per the warranty obligation, but the complainant had refused for the replacement of the part and insisted for the replacement of the entire laptop. It is further alleged that the laptop has no manufacturing defect and the opposite party is ready and willing to resolve issued (if any) in laptop in question, as per the terms of the warranty and complainant is at liberty to approach the answering OP or any of its customer care centre and get the laptop repaired on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
6. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of one Nirmala Veera Raghava as Ex. RW1/A on record and closed the evidence of OP No. 3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of service call report as annexure C1, copy of bill as annexure C2, copy of service call report as annexure C3, copy of service call report as annexure C4, copy of service call report as annexure C5 and many email/reply of the emails as annexure C6. From the perusal of copy of complaints and the emails & reply of emails, it is clear that the laptop in question has started giving problem after 2-3 months of its purchase and the same has been repaired by the OPs for many times. It is also clear that the complainant requested the OPs to repair/replace the laptop, but the OPs have failed in redressing the complaint of the complainant, as is clear from page no. 6 of annexure C-6, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OP No.2 has even failed to appear before this Forum despite due service to rebut the case of the complainant. It appears that OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. It is also considered by us that the complainant has used the Laptop and after that the laptop in question has become defective. Therefore, in such circumstances, in our view, it would be appropriate, if the complainant is awarded 50% amount of the cost of his laptop, as the defective laptop is in the possession of the complainant and used the same for about one year.
6. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with the directions to the OPs No. 2 & 3 as under: -
i. To pay Rs.12,000/- being 50% amount of the cost of laptop along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship as well as litigation charges, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3.
The complainant is directed to hand over the old laptop with its charger to the OPs No. 2 & 3. The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OPs No. 2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount as directed above to each OP vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 06.03.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 06.03.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
