CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.234/2010
MR. NISHANT SAINI
S/O SH. SHRIPAL SAINI
R/O D-33, 3RD FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH ENCALVE,
NEW DELHI-110048
THROUGH SH. SHRIPAL SAINI S/O SH. H.P. SAINI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S COMPUTER LAND,
51-52 GROUND FLOOR, GEDORE HOUSE,
NEHRU PALCE, NEW DELHI-110019
- M/S H.P. SERVICES CENTRE,
RT OUTSOURCING SERVICES LTD.,
A-200 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110020
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:07.10.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The complainant purchased a laptop of HP from authorized dealer of HP i.e. OP-1 on 09.06.2009 for a sum of Rs.49,000/-.
The case of the complainant is that since the day of its purchase, the laptop was not working due to which the same was taken to OP-2 i.e. authorized service centre of manufacturer for repair, however, the same was not repaired and OP-2 failed to give any recommendation for the replacement of the laptop. It is stated that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to replace the laptop or refund the amount of Rs.49,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
OP-1 was proceeded ex parte.
OP-2 in its reply took the plea that complainant approached service centre of OP-2, reporting some “windows not installing and recovery” problem in the said laptop, which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 03.09.09 was issued to complainant and the aforesaid problem in the laptop was rectified by installing the windows and delivered the same to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on 07.9.2009. Again complainant approached to the service centre of OP-2, reporting some “slow working of recovery” problem in the said laptop which was duly entertained and a job sheet dated 11.12.2009 was issued to the complainant and the aforesaid problem in the laptop was rectified by installing the windows and delivered the same to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on 19.12.2009.
Nobody appeared for the parties. In fact nobody appeared for the complainant since June 2013.
We have carefully perused the record.
OP-1 is the authorized dealer of manufacturer and it has nothing to do with the deficiency in the product. Manufacturer has not been made a party. The most important thing is that OP-2 i.e. authorized service centre of manufacturer, has specifically stated that initially the laptop was brought to them on 03.09.09 and the problem was duly rectified to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant and the laptop was returned on 07.09.09. Thereafter the laptop was brought on 11.12.09, in fact it is 10.12.09 for which jobcard was issued and the problem was duly rectified by installing the windows in this laptop and was delivered to the complainant to his fullest satisfaction on 19.12.09. It is significant to note that the complainant has not filed any rejoinder to the reply of OP-2 rather complainant made a statement that he does not want to proceed against OP-2 and no relief is sought against OP-2 and accordingly on the statement of complainant, proceedings against OP-2 were dropped. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of manufacturer. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the laptop was ever taken to the authorized service centre after 19.12.09.
Keeping in view the above fact, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
