District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.315/2022.
Date of Institution: 09.06.2022.
Date of Order: 26.10.2022.
M/s. M.A.Chemicals, Plot No. 276, Gali No.4, Jassi Colony, Faridabad – 121003 through its Prop. Raj Kumar Aggarwal S/o Shri Girraj Kishore Aggarwal R/o House No.1956, Gali No. 40, Sanjay colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Mobile No. 9818529419.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Bhavyaji Computers Pvt. Ltd.,, R-413, Nehru Ground Faridabad through its Authorized person.
2. Lenovo Service Centre, Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd., GF 4 SCO No. 101, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002 through its authorized person. Mobile No. 9911512001.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal, AR on behalf of the complainant.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma in person on behalf of opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 6.7.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the Lenova laptop IP330-81 DE01BUIN (13/OFF/15.5) PF1AUBT-1 from the opposite party No.1 on dated 12.10.2018 and in this regard the opposite party No.1 raised the bill/invoice No. 18-19/NG/000600 in the name of the firm of the complainant and also given three years warrantee in respect of purchasing of the above said laptop. The said laptop was purchased by the complainant. During the warrantee period a problem of hinge problems were persisted and in this regard the complainant requested to opposite party No.1 to sort out the said problem and then the opposite party No.1 suggested to the complainant to service centre which was situated in Sector-16, Faridabad and the complainant visited in Sector-16, Faridabad i.e opposite party No.2 on dated 9.9.2021 for sort out the problem at that time the screen of the laptop was o.k. and where the representative of opposite party No.2 not issue the job sheet pertaining to sort out the problem and without the job sheet the representative of opposite party No.2 open the laptop and broken the screen and the complainant had got no knowledge pertaining to broken of the screen and without issuing the job sheet the representative of opposite party No.2 handover the laptop to the complainant and clearly told to the complainant that the hinge problems could not be sorted because the said problem was not covered in warranty period and then the complainant was very surprised and in this regard ultimately the complainant started the laptop on the same time and then the laptop screen was showing broken and the said screen of the laptop was broken by the negligency on the part of the representative of the opposite party No.2 In this regard the complainant visited to the Manager of the opposite party No.2 to sort out the said problem then on the instance of the Manager a job sheet was prepare don dated 9.9.2021. Since 9.9.2021 the said laptop was lying with the opposite party No.2 without sort out the problem. The complainant several times requested to the opposite parties to sort out the problem of the laptop i.e hinge problem and handover the laptop with full screen which had been broken by the representative of opposite party No.2 but the opposite parties time to time given the false assurances to the complainant and now the representative of opposite party No.2 charging the amount for sort out of the problem hinge, otherwise the said laptop would not be sort out. The representative of opposite party No.2 had given the quotation pertaining to replace of the hinge, LCD cover, LDCD Bezel, hinge cover amounting to Rs.22,922/- . Regarding this part the complainant enquired about the said part from other service ce3ntre in which they mentioned the amount of Rs.3000/- with labour charges . The opposite parties had no right to charge the alleged amount from the complainant because the said laptop was the warranty period. The opposite parties had no right to charge the alleged amount form the complainant because the said laptop was the warranty period. The cost of the laptop was Rs.34,000/- with GST and the opposite parties intentionally charging the alleged amount of Rs.22,922/- for replacing the plastic part only.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) either to handover the new branded set of the laptop in respect of the same model or to return the amount of Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment , business loss without the laptop and the said laptop was lying with the opposite party No.2 since 9.9.2021 and the screen of the laptop had also been broken by the representative of opposite party No.2.
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had purchased the Lenovo laptop IP330-81SE01BUIN(13/OFF/15.5) Serial # PFIAUBTJ from opposite party No.1 on dated 12.10.2018 and in this regard opposite party No.1 raised the bill NO. 18-19/NG/000600 in the name of the firm M/s. M.A.Chemicals. Plot No. 276, Gali NO.4, Jassi Colony, Faridabad. The laptop was with 3 warranty (First year Accidental damage and rest 2 years warranty without Accidental Damage Protection as per brand terms and conditions which were communicated to complainant at the time of purchase. During the 3rd year of warranty, the complainant reached to opposite party No.1 with damaged laptop and requested repair services. Since opposite party No.1 did not take care of service issues the complainant was advised to visit Lenovo Authorized service center opposite party No.2 for in warranty services as per brand terms and conditions, and also was informed that physical damage protection was for Ist year of warranty period which expire don 11th October 2019. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Registered notice was sent to opposite party No.2 on dated 14.06.2022 received back with the report of ‘refusal”. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.7.2022.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5 We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Bhavyaji Computers Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to:either to handover the new branded set of the laptop in respect of the same model or to return the amount of Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex/.CW1/A – affidavit of Raj Kumar Aggarwal, proprietor of M/s. M.A.Chemicals, Faridabad, Ex. C-1 – invoice, Ex.C-2 – Carry in Center Acknowledgement slip,, Ex.C-3 – Quotation, Ex.C-4 – Whatsapp message, Ex.C-5 – email.
Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, AR on behalf of the complainant has made a statement that “I want to become opposite party No.1 as proforma opposite party”.
7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.1 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party No.1 has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1.
8. As per Ex. C-3 - Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd. representative of opposite party No.2 had given the quotation pertaining to replace of the hinge, LCD cover, LDCD Bezel, hinge cover amounting to Rs.22,922/- . Regarding this part the complainant enquired about the said part from other service centre in which they mentioned the amount of Rs.3000/- with labour charges vide Ex.
C4. In the interest of justice, Opposite party No.1 is directed to fix the screen free of cost and charge Rs. 5000/- for the hinges as per the evidence led by the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the opposite party No.1 will refund the invoice amount to the complainant. There are no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 26.10.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
