Delhi

East Delhi

CC/920/2013

GOPAL TRADING - Complainant(s)

Versus

ELITE BUSINESS - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 920/13

 

Gopal Trading Company

B-3, Jaya Market, Kaman, Bharatpur,

Rajasthan – 321022

Through its Proprietor Shri Babu Lal Sharma                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Elite Business Machines (P) Ltd.

(HP authorized service centre)

F-207/3, Ashish Complex, New Rajdhani Enclave

Main Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Jabil (HP authorized service centre)

Jabil Center, 107-A, 1^st Floor

Salcon Aurum, Jasola District Centre

Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025

 

3. Hawlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Towered, 6^th Floor, Global Business Park

Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 002

 

4. E Huts

G-3, Kaushal House

39, Nehru Palace, New Delhi – 110 019                                     ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 29.10.2013

Judgment Reserved on:18.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.01.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Gopal Trading Company has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Elite Business Machines (P) Ltd. (OP-1), Jabil (OP-2), Hawlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) and E Huts (OP-4) for deficiency in services. 

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant Gopal Trading Company, a proprietor firm of Girdhari Lal Sharma purchased a laptop HP notebook 2000-2202 TU bearing S.No. 5cb237449m on 09.11.2012 vide invoice no. RI/5142 from E-Huts (OP-4) for a sum of Rs. 33,100/-.  It has been stated that the laptop was having problem from the very beginning though one year warranty was given by HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).  The complainant on 10.08.2013 sent the laptop  for repair as the same was within the warranty period.  However, the same was returned to the complainant on 13.08.2013, which was said to be in perfect condition after repair.  It is further stated that due to perpetual problem of the laptop, the complainant visited the office of Elite Business Machines (P) Ltd. (OP-1) and Jabil (OP-2) who were the authorised service centre of HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).  The details have been stated as follows:-

Sent to Service Center on	Received back on	No. of days taken to resolve the problem	Concerned problem	Service call report case no.
10.08.2013	13.08.2013	4	Web Cam is not working	XC21650740
04.09.2013	20.09.2013	17	Touchpad hanging problem	XC21790523
01.10.2013	04.10.2013	4	Touchpad hanging problem	Not mentioned
05.10.2013	12.10.2013	8	Touchpad hanging problem	Not mentioned

 

            It is further stated that on all the occasions, officials of respondent no. 1 and 2 admitted that the laptop was having manufacturing defects.  They kept the laptop for 33 days.  It is also stated that when the laptop was sent to OP-2 on 05.10.2013 for the problem, the complainant was asked to take back the repaired laptop within a weak.  When it was returned, it was having scratches, marks and bruises all over its body.  When the complainant raised objections to take the said laptop back, the concerned officials of OP-2 started shouting and misbehaving with the complainant.  The laptop again was having problem, which was sent for repair.  The complainant being proprietor’s son, he could not concentrate on his studies due to non-responding by OP-1 and 2.  It is stated that due to defects in the laptop and deficiency in the service, the complainant had to visit the respondents on many occasions, but all in vein. 

            It is stated that laptop of the complainant was still not functioning as a result of which the complainant was continuously and uninterruptedly suffering physically as well as mentally.  Thus, he has stated that there has been deficiency on the part of OP-1,2,3&4.  He has prayed for replacement of laptop or return of the cost of laptop amounting to Rs. 33,100/- with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 20,000/-. 

3.        In the Written Statement, filed on behalf of OP-3, they have taken various objections as the complainant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as he was using the laptop for commercial purposes.  The complainant has no locus standii to file the complaint as the purchaser was Gopal Trading Company.  There was no deficiency on the part of OP-3.  The complainant has not produced any documents to prove his connection with Gopal Trading Company.  The engineers of  OP-3 had attended the grievance of the complainant without any delay and cured the defect as early as possible.  There was no manufacturing defect to the laptop. 

It has further stated that the first complaint was lodged on 10.08.2013 after 9 months of its purchase.  They have repaired the laptop and replaced the parts as and when the complaint was registered.  They were always ready and willing to repair the system if there was any complaint, but the complainant was not taking interest in repairing of the product and demanding unit replacement.  The complainant reported the problem of Web Cam on 13.08.2013, which was replaced being under warranty.  Touchpad problem was also resolved by the service engineers of OP-3.  There was no manufacturing defect.  Keeping the laptop for 33 days have been denied.  They have stated that engineers of OP-3 visited the premises of the complainant and carried out necessary repairs and replacements.  They have complied with all the necessary conditions of warranty.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        OP-1 and 4 appeared, but did not file any WS.  Since no WS was filed on behalf of OP-1&4 and nobody appeared on behalf of OP-2, though no orders were passed in respect of having them proceeded     ex-parte, but the fact that they did not put appearance nor filed any WS, they stand proceeded ex-parte. 

5.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-3, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

6.        In support of its case, the complainant did not file any evidence on affidavit.  However, on behalf of OP-3, Shri Siva Prasad Sivadasan, Contact Relations Manager deposed on affidavit wherein he has narrated the facts, which have been stated in their WS. 

7.        We have heard AR of OP-1 and Ld. Counsel for OP-3.  The complainant did not put appearance to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-3 that the complainant was not a “consumer” as Gopal Trading Company was the purchaser of laptop.  If a look is made to retail invoice filed on behalf of complainant, it is noticed that HP notebook has been purchased by Gopal Trading Company.  Shri Babu Lal Sharma is stated to be the proprietor of Gopal Trading Company.  The complaint has been filed by Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, who is stated to be the son of Shri Babu Lal Sharma, the proprietor of Gopal Trading Company. 

            The fact that there is nothing on record to show that Shri Babu Lal Sharma, the proprietor of Gopal Trading Company have authorized the complainant to pursue the complaint and no evidence has been filed in support of its complaint, the complaint cannot be said to be proved.  On the contrary, OP-3 has filed their evidence wherein they have taken the plea that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  The fact that the complainant has not been authorized by Shri Babu Lal Sharma, the proprietor of Gopal Trading Company, who have purchased the laptop, HP notebook, though, being the son of      Shri Babu Lal Sharma, proprietor of Gopal Trading Company, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, he has no locus standii to file the present complaint. 

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                        Member    

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President