Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/34/2016

Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVI Computers - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     34 of 07.04.2016

Date of Decision:                      :      21.07.2016

 

Satpal Singh Ward No.3, Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur District Nawanshahr.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. AVI Computers, Backside Flora Market, Teacher Colony Street, Garhshankar Road, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, through its Proprietor.
2. HP Computers Service Center, SCO 123-124, Sector-34, Chandigarh, through its MD/Proprietor/Manager.
3. HP Inc. Computers India, GF, Flobal Business Ops Pvt. Ltd, No.66/2, Ward No.83, Bagmane Tech Park, 7^th Floor-A Wing “Embassy Prime” CV Raman Nagar, PC-560093, Bangluru – 560093 (Karnatka).

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

MS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OP No.1                                     :         None

For OP No.2&3                       :         Ex parte.

 

ORDER

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Laptop make H.P. I-3, Model-CND5055DTI for Rs.29,100/- from Op. No.1 vide bill No.970 dated 27 July, 2015, having warranty of one year. The said Laptop started giving problem immediately after its purchase as it had starting and display problem. On 17.11.2015, he deposited his Laptop with Op. No.1 for its repair which sent it to Op. No. 2 for its repair and told to come after 4 days to collect it. On 24.11.2015, the said Laptop again got defective and he took it to OP No.1, which again sent the same to OP No.2 for its repair. Some days after receipts of the said Laptop from the OP No.1, it again started giving problem and on 30.12.2015, further took it to OP No.1 which sent the same to Op. No.2 for its repair. The said Laptop again got defective on 20.02.2016 and he took it to OP No. 1, which again sent to OP No.2 for its repair. He received the said Laptop after its repair but it again stating giving problem and he took it OP No.1 for its repair on 22.03.2016.  However, he received the same on 24.03.2016 but the problem was still persisting and he again handed over the laptop to OP No.1 which again sent to Op No.2 for repair vide reactivation No.975 dated 24.03.2016.  In this way, within eight months of its purchase he had taken the laptop in question to Service Center for six times but the problem was still persisted.  Therefore, he requested the OPs to replace the laptop but they did not pay any heed to his request.  It is further stated that he purchased the said laptop for the purpose of study of his children but purpose could not be fulfilled because the OP No.1 had sold him a defective/spurious product manufactured by OP No.3.  Therefore, his complaint be allowed and the OPs be directed to replace the laptop with new one or to refund the price the same.  They be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       On being put to notice, Op No.1 has filed written version stating therein that as and when complainant submitted the laptop, the answering OP has sent the same to company for its service and when it received the laptop from company after its repair, it intimated the complainant and handed over the laptop; that answering OP is only dealer which sell the good/product after taking from company; that answering OP has disclosed the customer about the guarantee of the goods/products that in case of defect in goods/products, the service could be done by company; that for saving harassment of customers, the answering OP has sent the goods/products to company for its service; that complainant has complained regarding selling of spurious goods; the genuineness of the laptop in question was verifiable from the company’s website with serial number; that complainant was sold a laptop of HP Company which is a reputed one.  Therefore, it prayed that present complaint is totally baseless and liable to be filed.

          Due to non-appearance OP No.2&3 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 17.05.2016.

3.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. AVI Computer bill No.970 dated 17.07.2015 Ex.C-1, Service Call Report No.186388 dated 23.06.2016 Ex.C-2, Service Call Report No.116378 dated 01.10.2015 Ex.C-3, Service Call Report No.178092 dated 22.02.2016 Ex.C-4, Service Call Report No.116353 dated 17.09.2015 Ex.C-5, Service Call Report No.116363 dated 25.09.2015 and closed the evidence.  Sh.Anil Sharma owner of AVI Computers – OP-1 has tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

4.       We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the record carefully.  None has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to address arguments.

5.       From the copy of bill dated 17.07.2015, it is evident that complainant has purchased laptop in question from OP No.1 for Rs.29,100/-.  From the perusal of copies of service call reports dated 23.03.2016, 01.10.2015, 20.02.2016, 17.09.2015, 25.09.2015 Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, which were issued by service center of HP Company, it is evident that the laptop in question was handed over to OP No.2 for its repair for six times in short span of eight months of its purchase. As per the complainant the problem could not be rectified even after its repeated repairs.  Taking all these facts into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that the laptop in question is defective, is beyond repair and it needs to be replaced with new one. The O.P. No.1, being seller and the O.P. No.3, being manufacturer were under obligation to replace the laptop or to refund the consideration amount. But by not doing so, they are deficient in providing services and are liable to either replace the laptop in question with the new one or to refund the consideration amount received from the complainant. Not only this, they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. In the case of Prabhat Kumar Sinha and Anr Vs Nitish Kumar III (2016) CPJ 239 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the petitioners being the seller of the defective computer were under obligation either to rectify the defects or to replace computer or refund the consideration amount received. It was further held that so far as liability of the manufacturing company is concerned, it is the issue between the manufacturing company and dealer for which respondent could not be made to suffer. It may be stated that whenever the O.P. No.1 had handed over the laptop in question for its repair to O.P. No.2 i.e. the service centre, it had duly repaired the same, thus, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed. 

6.       In view of the aforesaid discussion we dismiss the complaint against the OP No. 2 and allow the same against OPs No. 1 & 3. The OPs No. 1 & 3 are directed in the following manner: -

1.       Either to replace the laptop in question with new one or to refund Rs.29,100/- i.e. price of the laptop in question, to the complainant,  

2.       To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

3.       To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

8.       The OPs No.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  21.07.2016

 

  

                                                          (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

 

                  

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member