Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 476.
Instituted on : 29.11.2013.
Decided on : 17.03.2015.
Anju Bala d/o Late Ishwar Singh r/o 580 Sector-4, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager/Proprietor/Director and Sales Executive Sakshi C-Destination(HP World G-10-12, Naraina Complex Civil Road, Rothak-124001.
- Manager/Proprietor/Director C-Destination Plot No.137 Sector 37, Phase-2, Village Basai, Gurgaon, Haryana.
- Manager/Proprietor/Director, Head office, C-Destination FA-09-Ansal Crown Plaza Sector 15-A Faridabad.
- Legal Officer, Corporate office, Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24 Salarpuria Arena Abugodi, Hasur Road, Bangalore- 560030.
- Manager/Proprietor/Director HP Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd. 24 Salarpuria Arena Abugodi, Hasur Road, Bangalore- 560030.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Smt. Bhim Kaur Chhillar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Jimmi Rathi, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
Opposite party no.2 already given up.
Opposite party no.1, 3 & 5 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that for earning her livelihood she had purchased one laptop of description HP Pavilion G6-2132TX Serial No.5CD2250CL9 for a sum of Rs.32350/- with 2 years warranty from the opposite party no.1. It is averred that the laptop in question worked well for few days but started causing problems in starting and processing and the matter was duly reported to the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 never gave the proper response. It is averred that in the month of December 2012 the complainant again contacted the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 after repairing the laptop returned the same to the complainant in the month of January 2013. But the laptop again started giving technical problems and the complainant deposited the laptop to the opposite party no.1 many times but it did not work properly. It is averred that after passing one year of warranty of laptop it was told by the opposite parties that the motherboard and other important components of the laptop need to be replaced and the complainant had to bear the cost of repair herself despite of the fact that the lapatop was having 2 years warranty. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.2, 3 & 4 but all in vain and the opposite parties always given unsatisfactory and poor response. It is averred that by not removing the defects of the laptop, opposite parties have caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant and the complainant has been deprived of her studies and doing part time computer work. As such it is averred that opposite parties are liable for adopting unfair trade practice by cheating the complainant and it is prayed that the opposite parties be directed either to refund the price of Rs.32350/- and also to pay Rs.40000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 & 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.01.2012 of this Forum. Opposite party no.2 was given up by the complainant vide statement dated 20.02.2014 being unnecessary. Opposite party no.5 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.02.2015 of this Forum. Opposite party no.4 appeared and filed its written submitting therein that in the case in hand, the subject laptop had warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. It is averred that the laptop was reported for the issued caused due to normal wear and tear and ageing of the unit and the same were resolved by the authorized service centre of the answering opposite party as and when reported but the complainant is demanding the replacement of the laptop which is not permissible under the terms of warranty policy. On merits, it is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the answering opposite party and the complainant and the answering opposite party cannot be held responsible or liable for the acts of the opposite party no.1. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is only authorized dealer of the answering opposite party to sell the product and is not authorized to repair or service the products of the answering opposite party. It is averred that the opposite party no.1 had offered warranty on the laptop for 2 years in its individual capacity, if so, the opposite party no.1 is solely responsible for the commitments/assurances given in its independent capacity. It is averred that on verifying the customer care database, based on serial no. of product of the complainant it was found that on 05.06.2013 reporting the issues in the Hard Drive against which the issue was resolved by replacing the Hard drive. On 17.10.2013 and 23.10.2013 reporting issues in the laptop, which were due to accidental damage caused to the unit and were not covered under the warranty and as such the complainant was offered to repair/resolve the issues on chargeable basis but the complainant did not co-operate for the service and insisted on the replacement of the laptop which is not permissible under the warranty policy. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the alleged laptop and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in her evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand, opposite party no. 4 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A which was already filed as reply and has closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased one laptop from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.32350/- on dated 21.09.2012 as is proved from the copy of bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per bill Ex.C1 there is warranty of 2 years i.e. 1YR + 1 YR SCHEME. It is also on record that as per copies of e-mail placed on file as Ex.C2 dated 23 October 2013 to Ex.C4 dated 29.10.2013 there was some defect in the laptop in question and opposite party directed the complainant to call back to resolve the issues with laptop. The contention ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the laptop in question was having manufacturing defects and the same was not repaired/replaced by the opposite parties despite the fact that it was within warranty period. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.4 is that the opposite party no.1 had offered warranty on the laptop for 2 years in its individual capacity and the opposite party no.1 is solely responsible for the commitments/assurances given in its independent capacity.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the documents placed on file it is proved that there was warranty of two years on the alleged laptop and as per the declaration made on the bill Ex.C1 it is clearly mentioned that “All warranties are subject to the principal manufacturer/or its authorized service center” which shows that the manufacturer and service centre are also liable for the warranty given by the dealer. Moreover as per the reply/affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4 the defect in the laptop appeared on 05.06.2013 i.e. during the first year of its warranty which was resolved by the opposite parties. But as per the contention of complainant the same was not resolved properly and again appeared on 17.10.2013 and 23.10.2013 for which the complainant had to got repair the same on chargeable basis which proves the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle repetedly taken to service station for repairs-The manufacturing defect, must be assumed-Onus of proof shifts upon OP, and it is further held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect”, as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Mumbai has held that: “Manufacturing defect-Expert evidence-Principal of res ipsa loquitur-Failure of compressor of the AC within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amount to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied and it is further held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous” and as per 1(2007) CPJ 120 titled Head Marketing and Communication Vs. Ankush Kapoor & Ors. Hon’ble U.T. Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “Handset giving problems from day one/Defects could not be rectified inspite of being repaired twice-Undoubtedly, it suffered from inherent defects- Deficiency in service proved- Forum rightly ordered refund of cost of handset with interest”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party no.3, 4 & 5 shall refund the price of laptop in question i.e. Rs.32350/-(Rupees thirty two thousand three hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.11.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the laptop in question to the opposite parties. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.03.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
