Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/408/2017

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Croma A Tata Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	408 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	12.05.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	22.12.2017

 

 

 

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Sh.Devi Dass, r/o H.No.1295-C, Small Flats, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Croma A Tata Enterprises, Infiniti Retail Limited Trading as Retail Invoice, SCO No.1094-1095, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 160022

2]  Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.146-147, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034.

3]  HP PPS Service India Pvt. Ltd., Salarpuria GR Tech Park, Akash Block/Khata No.69/3, Whitefield Road, Banglore 560066/Karnataka, India

….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued by:- Sh.P.C.Kounal, Adv. for complainant.

            None for Opposite Party No.1

            OP No.2 exparte.

Sh.Rahul, Adv. proxy for Sh.Vipul Dharmani, ADv. for Opposite Party No.3.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased one HP Laptop 15-AY083TU 38 cm. for Rs.30,990/- on 23.10.2016 from Opposite Party No.1 (Ann.C-1), having three years warranty upto 22.10.2019 (Ann.C-2).  It is averred that the said Laptop started giving problem from March, 2017 and on lodging the complaint, the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.2 checked the Laptop and told the complainant that there is display issue and it cannot be repaired and will be replaced with new one (Ann.C-3).  The complainant took the matter with Opposite Party NO.1 as well as Opposite Party No.3/manufacturer and after exchange of  e-mail and calls, the complainant was surprised to receive a reply from Opposite Party NO.3 that the issue cannot be covered under warranty.  It is averred that however, the Opposite Party NO.3 is ready to repair the under chargeable basis with discount quota.  It is stated that OPs are making false excuses whereas their Engineer categorically stated in the Service Call Report that LCD to be replaced, but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply and while admitting the sale of the Laptop in question to the complainant, stated that the warranty on the said product was of the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party NO.3 at the time of purchase.  It is stated that as and when any complaint was received from the complainant to any defect in the product, he was directed to report the manufacturer/OP No.3 and as a retailer the Opposite Party NO.1 has no say on that.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.7.2017.

         The Opposite Party NO.3 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant had lodged complaint in respect of the display issue in the laptop in question on 29.3.2017, 1.4.2017 and 5.4.2017, which was attended to promptly, and on inspection, it was found that the display of the laptop damaged due to mishandling, hence complainant was informed that the defect (white spots) developed in the display is caused due to physical damage/customer induced damage (CID), and the same is not covered under the standard warranty. The complainant was offered the repair on chargeable basis, which was not acceptable to him.  It is also stated that display issue reported in said laptop is caused due to physical damage and not covered under warranty terms.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPNO.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant has also filed replication reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for Opposite Party NO.3 and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant had purchased HP Notebook 15-ay083TU 39 cm, Serial No.CND632664T, Product No.X3C61PA on 23.10.2016 for Rs.30,990/- from Opposite Party NO.1 (Ann.C-1). The warranty of the said HP Notebook/Laptop was upto 22.10.2019 (Ann.C-2). Just after few months i.e. in March, 2017, the Laptop of the complainant reportedly failed to operate and there was a problem in display in the Laptop.  Admittedly, the complainant contacted the Service Centre of OPs on 29.3.2017, 1.4.2017 and 15.4.2017 for repair of the Laptop, but the OPs did not repair it and informed the complainant that the display of the Laptop is damaged due to mishandling.  The OPs has also informed the complainant that the defect in the display of the Laptop i.e. White Spots developed in the Laptop, caused due to physical damage/customer induced damage (CID) and hence refused to repair the Laptop in question free of cost.  The Opposite Party NO.3 has stated that the laptop of the complainant can be repaired on chargeable basis i.e. on payment only.

 

7]       The contentions raised by the OPs justifying rejection for repair of Laptop in question under warranty, is vague and superfluous.  The OPs have not come with any specific act & omission on the part of the complainant while handling his Laptop, which led to this fault in its display system.  The OPs have miserably failed to stand to their commitment to provide after sale service within warranty period.  Such flimsy excuses on the part of the Companies cannot be acceded to, to meet the ends of justice, it is imperative to impose deterrent cost on the OPs to avoid such exploitative attitude on the part of traders.  The OPs definitely suffer from unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part while dealing with the genuine complaint of the complainant regarding laptop in question.

 

8]       Keeping into consideration the above facts, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs No.1 to 3 to jointly & severally to pay back Rs.30,990/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

         In case the OPs failed to comply with the order within the stipulated period, then they shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

 

9]       The complainant, after the receipt of above awarded amount, shall handover the Laptop in question, along with its accessory (if any), to the Opposite Parties, against receipt.

         Certified copy of this order be forwarded to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd December, 2017                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                           (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER