| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.59 of 02-03-2017 Decided on 06-06-2017 Jigar Garg aged about 19 years S/o Kewal Krishan R/o # 158, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Computer World, SCO No.9, Shakti Complex, Mall Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. 2.Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Limited, First Floor, 100 Ft. Road, Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager. 3.Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd., W-42, Okhla Phase-2, New Delhi, through its M.D/Manager/Authorized Signatory. 4.Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena Hosur Main Road Adugodi, Bangalore-560030, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized person. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Chander Mohan, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 and 4: Deleted. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Jigar Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Computer World and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one laptop/notebook model bearing No.13-D-115-TU for Rs.87,000/- vide invoice No.281 dated 28.06.2016 from opposite party No.1, importer and manufactured by opposite party No.4 with one year guarantee/warranty. It is alleged that at the time of selling of the laptop/note book, opposite party No.1 gave assurance to the complainant that it is one of the best company and there will be no problem during its usage. After purchase of the laptop/notebook, the complainant started using it for his personal use. In the month of November 2016, the whole of the laptop/notebook started becoming hot and switched off automatically and thereafter, its screen developed scratches automatically. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and complained about the same. On the suggestion of opposite party No.1, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and complained regarding the defects in the laptop/notebook. Opposite party No.2 after checking the laptop/notebook, retained it and asked the complainant to visit after 5-6 days. It is further alleged that thereafter Sh.Kewal Krishan, father of the complainant, visited opposite party No.2 to enquire about the laptop/notebook. Mr.Anil Kumar, official of opposite party No.2 conveyed that these are not the scratches, rather these are cracks and complainant will have to pay Rs.7500/- for repair of the laptop/notebook. The father of the complainant requested opposite party No.2 that the laptop/notebook is within guarantee/warranty period and it can not charge any amount from him, but all in vain. The father of the complainant was left with no alternative except to agree to the same as the complainant was in dire need of the laptop/notebook. It is further alleged that on 31.12.2016, opposite party No.2 retained the laptop/notebook with it and issued receipt and conveyed father of the complainant that it will send one e-mail containing quotation to the complainant from opposite party No.3 (Service Incharge in India of opposite party No.4) for getting approval for repair of the laptop/notebook against approximately payment of Rs.7500/-. Accordingly, opposite parties sent email dated 3.1.2017 and complainant gave approval for the same. Opposite party No.2 asked father of the complainant to take delivery of the laptop/notebook after 7-8 days. Thereafter father of the complainant approached opposite party No.2 to receive the laptop/notebook, it conveyed that the laptop/notebook has not been repaired so far and asked him to wait for some days. After that again he enquired about the laptop/notebook, but at that time, opposite party No.2 conveyed that the spare parts are not available at New Delhi and it will take time to arrange for the same. Accordingly, after few days, father of the complainant again visited the shop of opposite party No.2. At that time, opposite party No.2 conveyed him that the complainant have to pay Rs.27,000/- instead of Rs.7500/- for repair of the laptop/notebook. It is further alleged that the complainant contacted opposite party No.3 and explained it the episode. Thereafter the matter remained pending and so many discussions were made between the officials of opposite party No.3 and complainant. Finally, on repeated requests made by the complainant, officials of opposite parties conveyed him that he has to pay Rs.7571/- for repair of the laptop/notebook i.e. to avail the defective spare part and for this, opposite party No.3 will send the fresh e-mail and only after approval given by the complainant, only then it will arrange the spare part of the laptop/notebook. Accordingly, opposite parties sent email dated 7.2.2017 to the complainant. The complainant gave approval for the same. On asking of opposite parties, the complainant also sent them scanned copy of the cheque amounting to Rs.7571/-. He paid a sum of Rs.7571/- through cheque to opposite party No.3 on the asking of opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 8.2.2017. He was not liable to pay this amount. It is further alleged that inspite of payment of Rs.7571/-, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have failed to send the spare parts required for repair of the laptop/notebook at service centre of Bathinda. It is further alleged that the complainant received an another e-mail from opposite party No.3 on 22.02.2017, wherein opposite parties raised the demand of more money and conveyed the complainant that the total price of the defective part of the laptop/note book is Rs.22,000/-. This demand is stated to be illegal, null & void. As per complainant, he made repeated requests to opposite parties in this regard, but they are compelling him to pay Rs.22,000/-. It proves that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite parties. Due to this, the complainant and his family are suffering from mental tension, agony, harassment and botheration etc. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the laptop/notebook with new one or to refund of its price i.e. Rs.87,000/- alongwith cheque of Rs.7571/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party Nos.1 and 4 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Notice to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 was issued, but none appeared on their behalf. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 1.3.2017 and 25.5.2017, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C20); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of service call report (Ex.C3); photocopy of courier receipt, (Ex.C4); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7, Ex.C10, Ex.C11, Ex.C14 and Ex.C16); photocopies of quotations (Ex.C8, and Ex.C9, Ex.C12, Ex.C13, Ex.C17 and Ex.C18); photocopy of service charges, (Ex.C15) and photocopy of cheque (Ex.C19) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for complainant that the quotations were received alongwith e-mail dated 3.1.2017 and then e-mail dated 7.2.2017. By both these e-mails, quotations were for Rs.7571/-. In response to e-mail dated 7.2.2017, the complainant sent cheque of Rs.7571/- on the same day through courier. This fact is also admitted by opposite party No.3 in e-mail dated 22.2.2017, (Ex.C16), but as per this e-mail, opposite party No.3 has sent another quotation for Rs.21933/- + Rs.747.50/-. Opposite party No.3 has demanded different charges for the same problem whereas it was under obligation to do the needful within the warranty period. From both counts, act of opposite party No.3 was within the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have also not dared to contest the claim. The evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. The complaint be accepted and prayer reliefs be granted for. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. As per complainant, the laptop/notebook was purchased by the complainant on 28.6.2016. The fault was reported to opposite party No.2 vide service call report, (Ex.C3). The issue reported was 'display glass damage' and remarks of opposite party No.2 was 'need to be diagnosis'. Opposite party No.3 has also admittedly asked to send quotation for Rs.7571/-. The complainant has voluntarily paid this amount. This fact leads the inference that the problem reported was beyond the warranty terms and conditions as the screen was damaged. In case, the problem was covered under warranty, then the complainant was to claim from the service centre as per warranty terms and conditions. Therefore, from this fact, it is inferred that the problem was beyond the warranty terms and conditions. The complainant has placed on record quotations received from opposite party No.3, (Ex.C8, Ex.C9, Ex.C12 and Ex.C13). As per these quotations, a sum of Rs.747.50/- was for the service charges and Rs.6823/- was cost of part Bazel. The complainant has also received another quotations, (Ex.C17 and Ex.C18). These quotations are for the service charges amounting to Rs.747.50/-, but cost of part is mentioned as Rs.21,933.43/- including tax, but a perusal of record reveals that this quotation is for LCD penal kit whereas earlier quotation was for Bazel. Quotations were for different parts. It can be reason of different estimates. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the laptop with new one or refund of its price. At the cost of repetition, the problem reported is held beyond the warranty terms and conditions and there is no other evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. The laptop/notebook was purchased on 28.6.2016 and problem was reported on 31.12.2016 i.e. more than 6 months after purchase. From this fact also, it can be inferred that there was no manufacturing defect. There is also no other evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the complainant has paid Rs.7571/- as part payment. Opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the laptop/notebook, although, for want of remaining charges, but it has also not returned the laptop/notebook. Opposite party No.2 was not under statutory obligation to repair the laptop/notebook. The complainant has also no legal right to get the laptop/notebook repaired from opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 cannot be forced to repair the laptop/notebook against Rs.7571/- paid by the complainant. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have unnecessary delayed the matter and retained the amount received from the complainant. This fact certainly amounts to deficiency in service. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.7571/- received from the complainant and return him laptop/notebook in question. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 06-06-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
