H &H. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hardware and Software Solutions, SCO 198-200, IIIrd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Ashu Batta, Director of the Company.

                                                        .…Appellant

                           Vs.

1.     Bharat Gakhar son of Gulshan Gakhar resident of House No.130, Kewal House, Vijaynagar, Bhiwani, Haryana through his GPA Holder Sh. Rahul Singla son of Sh. Ramesh Lal resident of House No.3087, Sector 27D, Chandigarh.

                                                                             …. Respondent

2.     M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi Hosur Road, Banglore- 560030

                                    Proforma respondent

BEFORE:      JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

Present:       Ms. Geeta Sharma, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondent No.1

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

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1, against the order, dated 10.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 536 of 2010 vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as follows;

“8. In view of the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly allowed.  We consider that it is the liability of the OP No.1 to replace the defective Laptop with a new one having same model and configuration as the three years warranty of the Laptop was given by OP No.1 at its own. Therefore, we direct the OP No1 to replace the Laptop with new one accordingly, and further to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- towards harassment and a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18%, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.”

 2.        Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased one Laptop make HP Model 6715b AMD product No.RK154AV for a sum of Rs.36,300/- from OP No.1, having warranty of three years. It was stated that the Laptop did not work properly, after its purchase, as its battery backup was not proper and the charger was also faulty. It was further stated that on the advice of OP No.1, the complainant visited the Service Centre in Sector 34, Chandigarh. The officials, in the Service Centre  retained the laptop with them against job card No. W-675 and replaced the charger and battery of the laptop after several visits.  It was further stated that after a span of five months, the said Laptop again started giving problem, as the processor used to heat up and the battery was not working properly. On approaching the Service Centre again, he was told that the Laptop was out of warranty. He was also told to approach OP Nos.1 &2, as the warranty of Laptop, had not been updated, on their system. It was further stated that, thereafter, he approached the OPs, many a time for the rectification of defect in the Laptop, but they could not do anything except retaining the same every-time with them, and returning it to him without removing the defect. It was further stated that in March, 2010 the display of the Laptop got faulty. When  the complainant approached the OPs, he was told that LCD did not come under the warranty of HP. Again on 10.4.2010, due to non-functioning of the laptop, in question, the same was handed over to the OPs, against job sheet No. 8532  It was further stated that the complainant even called the customer care numbers of HP, but to no effect. When his grievance was not redressed, a legal notice was served upon the OPs, but without any result.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP-1, wherein, it was stated that the complainant had bought two laptops having invoice Nos. 9304 dated 19.9.2007 and 9697 dated 12.11.2007, R-1/1 & R-1/2 respectively. It was further stated that the complainant concealed this fact and tried to club complaints of both the laptops. It was further stated that the Laptop, in question, was Ok and in working condition. It was further stated that the adaptor of the Laptop was replaced against receipt No. 7876 dated 6.4.2009 and there was no problem with the battery.  It was denied that OP No.1 had ever asked the complainant to visit the Service Centre. It was further stated that the complainant approached for service of the laptop on 9.10.2009 after about 1½ year from the date of purchase, which means, during this period, the Laptop was working properly.  It was further stated that the Laptop was in working condition except that a huge amount of dust had collected on the same due to which the processor was getting heated and slight display problem was found, which was due to mishandling, and it was not covered under warranty.  It was further stated that   on 10.4.2010 again, the dust was removed and no other part was replaced. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.      OP No.2 in its reply stated that it had no control over the business of the retailers. It was further stated that there was no privity of contract, between OP No.2 and the retailers. It was further stated that OP No.2 only supplies its product for sale to the retailers.  It was denied that if OP No.2 was having any knowledge regarding the purchase of HP Laptop Model 6715b AMD from OP No.1. It was vehemently denied that the Laptop was carrying three years warranty. It was further stated that, the warranty was of one year from the date of purchase. It was admitted that the adaptor and battery were replaced. It was further stated that OP No.2  being a customer friendly Company, promptly redressed any genuine complaint from the customers. It was denied that the motherboard and keyboard ever replaced. It was further stated that the complainant was given proper service during the warranty of the product. After the lapse of warranty, the complainant was informed that any kind of service, would carry charges, as per the terms and conditions. It was further stated that OP No.2 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

7.         Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP No.1 has filed the instant appeal. 

8.         We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

9.       Admittedly, the laptop, in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide retail invoice Annexure C-2 for a sum of Rs.36,300/-  on 11.12.2007, with a warranty of three years, as is evident from the warranty card Annexure C-3. The factum that the laptop, in question, was carrying three years warranty, was not specifically denied by OP No.1, in its written reply. Even Mr. Ashu Batta, Director of OP No.1, made a statement dated 9.5.2011, in the District Forum, that he gave the warranty of the product vide invoice dated 11.12.2007 for three years. It is further evident from the record that the laptop had been giving trouble right from the very beginning. OP No.2, in its written reply, admitted that the adaptor and the battery of the laptop were replaced on 16.7.2008.  OP  No.1 also admitted, in the written reply, that the laptop was also brought to it on 9.10.2009, 20.3.2010 and 10.4.2010, with different defects, which were rectified. However, the job cards showing that the defects pointed out, from time to time, by the complainant, were rectified were not produced by the OPs. From the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the evidence, on record, it is proved that the defects pointed out, in the laptop, were never completely rectified by the OPs. The OPs were, thus, deficient in rendering service. However, the complainant failed to prove that the laptop, in question, was having inherent manufacturing defect. The District Forum, thus, erred in directing the OPs to replace the laptop, without affording them an opportunity to rectify the defects therein. In our considered opinion, in the first instance, the OPs should be given an opportunity to rectify the defects, in the laptop, in question. Only after they failed to rectify the defects, they could be asked to replace the same. The order of the District Forum requires modification to this extent.

10.                   Since, the complainant had to undergo a lot mental agony, and physical harassment, for a sufficiently long period, on account of the acts of omission and commission of OP Nos.1 & 2 the District Forum was right in awarding compensation, in the sum of Rs.5500/-.

11.                   For the reasons stated above, we partly allow the appeal with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified as under;

(i)         The appellant/OP No.1 is directed to repair the Laptop in question, and make it functional, to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount from him on production of the same, by him, at the premises of OP No.1, within 10 days from the date of a receipt of copy of the order

(ii)        If the appellant/OP No.1, failed to repair the said laptop, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, then, in that eventuality, it shall  be liable to replace the same, with a new one,

(iii)       The other directions given by the District Forum regarding the payment of compensation and litigation costs shall remain intact.

(iv)       Directions (i) and (ii) above shall be complied with by the appellant/OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(v)        The amount of compensation shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by the OPs, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the same, till realization, besides costs.

 12.              Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                         

 13^th December, 2011.                                                 sd/-                                                                           [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                          PRESIDENT             

                                                                                         sd/-                                                                                                           [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                          MEMBER

sd/-   

                                                                                    [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER