Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
- Sh.Varun Bhalla complainant has filed the present complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant is an Engineer in Merchant Navy and for his personal use he purchased one Laptop model No. HP15AC10ITU-C13-5010U-4-ITB-15.6-W10 Make HP from opposite party No.1 vide Invoice No. 2015-16/09/0007 on 2.9.2015 for Rs. 35000/-. After few days from the date of purchase the laptop started giving trouble to the complainant. In March 2016 complainant was facing the problem while switching on the laptop. At that time complainant was posted at Bombay. So the complainant approached the HP service centre in Mumbai near Church Gate. The service centre vide their job card No. 4770469532 found that the hard disk of the laptop was not working. So they replaced the hard disc of the laptop and the same was handed over to the complainant after a lapse of 15 days. Again after few days i.e. on 4.4.2016 the laptop again started malfunctioning . The complainant immediately wrote an e-mail to HP
- Opposite parties be directed to replace the defective laptop with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 35000/- ;
- Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/-.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is not legally maintainable against the replying opposite party, as such the same is liable to the dismissed against the replying opposite party ; that no cause of action has been accrued to the complainant against opposite party No.1 nor any relief has been claimed against opposite party No.1 ; that the complainant has himself stated in the complaint that there is an inherent defect in his laptop and he himself has also admitted that he has never approached the replying opposite party during the warranty period . On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have specifically been denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not opt to put in appearance and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Saurabh Sharma,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Aman Prashar,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Chabra Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that complainant purchased one Laptop model No. HP15AC10ITU-C13-5010U-4-ITB-15.6-W10 Make HP from opposite party No.1 vide Invoice No. 2015-16/09/0007 on 2.9.2015 for Rs. 35000/-. Copy of retail Invoice Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that after few days from the date of purchase i.e. in March, 2016, the laptop started giving trouble to the complainant. So the complainant approached the HP service centre in Mumbai near Church Gate, who issued job card No. 4770469532 and it was found that the hard disc of the laptop was not working. So the opposite party replaced the hard disc of the laptop and the same was handed over to the complainant after a lapse of 15 days. However, again on 4.4.2016 the laptop again started malfunctioning as its brightness keys and Broadcom network adapter were not working. The complainant was provided with a complaint number which is 477075065 and the complainant was also provided downloaded links for its various issues. But the issue regarding the installation of these drivers were not resolved. Ultimately on 8.4.2016, complainant managed to resolve the defect in his laptop by visiting their service centre. On 16.7.2016 the laptop again started malfunctioning. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 at his service centre at Amritsar. The service centre vide job card No. AMR10 dated 16.7.2016 took the laptop and the same was handed over to the complainant on 19.7.2016 after making some necessary repairs. However, again on 14-8-2016 complainant faced the issue of Black Dark patches on his laptop’s screen. So the complainant sent email to customer care , who provided complaint No. 4776598127 . In reply to e-mail complainant was asked to provide them the photographs of the defective display which the complainant provided . Ultimately on 25.8.2016 a technician from the service centre visited the complainant and replaced the Raw panel of the laptop i.e. its display unit. Again on 26.8.2016 the complainant faced hanging problem in his laptop and asked opposite party No.3 telephonically, but to no effect. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the laptop was having inherent manufacturing defect.
8. On the other hand opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has himself stated in the complaint that there is an inherent defect in his laptop and he himself has also admitted that he has never approached the replying opposite party during the warranty period. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Laptop Model No. HP15AC101TU-C13-5010U-4-ITB-15.6-W10 made HP from opposite party No.1 on 2.9.2015 vide invoice exbt.C-2. As per the record produced by the complainant himself, he approached the service centre of the opposite parties through e-mails copies of which are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, C-9 to C-11 raising certain defects occurred in the Laptop of the complainant during warranty period . The complainant also produced on record document in the form of service call report Ex.C-8 making certain repair as well as Ex.C-12 vide which panel has been replaced by the opposite party. The complainant through his affidavit exbt.C-1 has also deposed that he approached the service centre of the opposite parties for the repair of the Laptop even during warranty period of one year. However on 26.8.2016 the complainant faced hanging problem in his laptop and asked opposite party No.3 telephonically, but the opposite party failed to remove the defect in the Laptop. All this fully proves that opposite parties have failed to repair the Laptop of the complainant within warranty period and the Laptop was suffering from defect one after the another since the date of its purchase which the complainant has duly proved by producing evidence on record .
10. Whereas opposite party No.1 through its written version has only stated that as the complainant has himself stated that there is an inherent defect in his laptop and he himself has also admitted that he has never approached the replying opposite party during the warranty period . So the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Opposite parties 2 & 3 did not opt to put in appearance to rebut the claim of the complainant , as such the evidence adduced by the complainant remained unrebutted. All this fully proves that the Laptop of the complainant is not repairable , as such the opposite parties are liable to replace the Laptop of the complainant with new one.
11. Resultantly the complaint is allowed with costs and the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to replace the Laptop of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the sale price of the Laptop i.e. Rs. 35000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 10.5.2017
