DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No.365 of 2011]

Smt. Shaweta Sharma w/o Sh. Naveen Sharma resident of H.No.44, Sector 1-A, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173220.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Beyond Computers, SCO No.76, First Floor, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh

2.                 R.T. Outsourcing Ltd. SCO No.121-122-123, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.                 Sanjay Sharma Senior Customer Support Engineer, Micro Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.13-14-15, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

4.                 Deepak Garg, Eagle, SCO No.219, Second Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

5.                 Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena Adugodi Houser Road, Bangalore-560030.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: None for the complainant

                        OPs No.1,2,3 & 4 already exparte

                        Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for OP No.5

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Smt. Shaweta Sharma has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that opposite party may kindly be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac Rupees only) as damages to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service rendered by opposite parties, alongwith interest and further opposite parties may kindly be ordered to replace the laptop free of costs, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 28.6.2007, she purchased an H.P. Pavilion Laptop Model DV 6314 from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.37,000/- vide invoice (C-1). The said laptop was having a warranty of one year.

                   According to the complainant, for the first time, in July 2008, the problem of charging occurred in the laptop.  So, she contacted opposite party No.1 through telephone who advised her to approach Sanjay Sharma (opposite party No.3) for redressal of her grievances.  In such circumstances, she approached Opposite Party No.3 who advised her to get the warranty extended for a period of two years.  Accordingly, the complainant on 25.7.2008, purchased the extended warranty (C-2) for a period of two years.

                   It has further been pleaded that in the month of July 2010, the laptop again started giving trouble. So, she approached Opposite Party No.2, which is the authorised Service Centre of Hewlett Packard (Opposite Party No.5).  Opposite party No.2 kept the laptop and asked to collect the same after a week.  After a week, her husband visited the premises of Opposite Party No.2 where he was told that the copy of the extended warranty was lost. So, the husband of the complainant was asked to provide another copy of the extended warranty and to collect the laptop after one week.  According to the complainant, another copy of the extended warranty was provided to opposite party No.2.  It has further been pleaded by the complainant that when her husband again went to Opposite party No.2, to collect the laptop, he was told that the motherboard has to be replaced for which the complainant has to pay the price of the motherboard.   When her husband pleaded that the laptop is within warranty, he was told that the warranty has been cancelled. According to the complainant, the warranty has been cancelled without any notice to her and without there being any reason.

                   Thus, according to the complainant, refusal to repair the laptop free of cost, within the extended warranty period, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the relief mentioned above.

3.                           None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                           In the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.5, it has been admitted that the laptop had developed some charging problem in the year 2008.  According to the Opposite Party, the said problem was redressed free of cost.  It has also been admitted that the complainant had purchased two years extended warranty in the month of July 2008. According to the Opposite Party, the complainant, after the purchase of the extended warranty, approached it for the first time on 20.7.2011 with the complaint regarding no power issue.  Opposite Party No.2 checked the laptop and told the complainant that the motherboard was to be repaired and for which the complainant has to pay the costs.  According to the opposite party, on 20.7.2011 the extended warranty had expired, so it is within its right to charge repair charges and, in such circumstances, insistence for payment of repair charges does not amount to deficiency in service nor is it unfair trade practice.  In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, the complaint deserves dismissal. 

5.                           On 27.7.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           The only issue which needs to be determined in this case is as to when the laptop was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 for repair after purchase of the extended warranty. The case of the complainant is that the laptop started giving trouble again after purchase of the extended warranty in the month of July 2010 and it was taken to Opposite Party No.2 on 17.7.2010 for repairs.  On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the said laptop was taken to Opposite Party No.2 on 20.7.2011 for repairs.  The complainant has placed on record the job card (Ex.C-3). From the perusal of the same, it is apparent that the laptop was taken for repair on 17.7.2010.  So, the averments made in the complaint stand corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from the job card (Ex.C-3).  On the other hand, the opposite party has failed to place on record any document to corroborate the averments made in the written statement.  The record concerning the date of receipt of the laptop for repairs is with the opposite party and it had opportunity to place on record the same.  However, for the reasons best known to the opposite party, it failed to do so.  In these circumstances, from the material on record, it has been duly proved that the laptop was taken for repairs on 17.7.2010 and not 20.7.2011 as pleaded by the Opposite Party.  On 17.7.2010 the laptop was within the period of extended warranty.  So, the opposite parties were duty bound to repair the same free of cost. 

8.                           Failure on the part of the opposite parties to repair the laptop, free of cost, which was within the period of extended warranty, certainly amounts to deficiency in service.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed as under :-

i)                   To change the motherboard and repair the laptop in question to the satisfaction of the complainant.

ii)                To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical agony undergone by her.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

11.                             Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

31.7.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER