DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:677 of 2010] Date of Institution : 15.10.2010 Date of Decision : 16.05.2011 ------------------------------------------- Ms. Neeru Gupta daughter of Sh. Ramesh Kumar resident of Street No.2, Near Jain School, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa, now resident of House No.3015, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. …..Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Fore Solutions (P) Ltd., SCO No.319, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. 2. Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd., Tower D, 6th Floor, Global Business Park, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122002. 3. R. T. Outsourcing Ltd., SCO No.121-123, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. …..Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:None for the complainant. Ms. Juhi, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. Vipul Dhirmani, Advocate for OP No.2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for OP No.3. PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER Ms. Neeru Gupta has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to the OPs: - i) To replace the defective laptop with a new one of same model and specification. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. iv) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that being a student of Computer Science & Engineering at Chitkara Institute of Engineering & Technology, she purchased a laptop through the Chitkara Institute from OP No.1, the price of which was quoted as Rs.42,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.41,500/- was got financed by her from State Bank of India, Mansa. This amount was paid by the complainant vide demand draft dated 10.8.2007 in favour of OP No.1. It is averred that the said laptop developed some technical problem and when approached for its repair, OP No.1 flatly refused to repair or replace the same and suggested her to approach OP No.3 i.e. HP Authorized Service Centre. The complainant approached OP No.3 on 20.8.2010 and handed over her laptop with it for necessary repair/replacement. As per the complainant, till date neither the laptop has been repaired by OP No.3 nor the same has been returned to her by OP No.3, which is a gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Based on these allegations, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 2. OP No.1, who is the dealer for the sale of laptop, in its written statement/reply, the factum of selling the laptop in question to the complainant in August 2007 has been admitted. It is pleaded that the said laptop was under warranty of three years and its services under warranty are to be provided by the authorized service centre only. It is further asserted by OP No.1 that the complainant was guided to approach OP No.3, who is the HP authorized service centre, for the repairs to be carried. According to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal qua it with costs. 3. OP No.2 in its written statement/evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Sriram Mohan, authorised signatory of OP No.2, has pleaded that the products manufacturing by OP No.2 are of good quality and its service network extends prompt service to its consumers throughout the country. The averments as made in paras No.1 and 2 of the complaint relating to the complainant being the student in the Chitkara Institute and purchasing the said laptop after availing loan from the financial institution have been specifically denied by OP No.2 for want of knowledge. It is pleaded that OP No.1 would have refused to repair the laptop as they are only the dealers of OP No.2 and not authorised to provide any after sale service. As per OP No.2, on two respective dates, the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to as on 11.4.2008, the battery and adapter were replaced and on 25.7.2008, the Customer Care Centre of OP No.2 replaced the Display and thereafter, the unit was working fine. As per this OP, the laptop in question was having warranty of only one year from the date of its purchase, which had now lapsed and the same is very much clear to the complainant, who is expecting free service from the OPs even after the expiry of the warranty. Thereafter, the complainant had deposited the laptop with OP No.3 on 25.08.2010 for repairs but the complainant is not collecting back the laptop from OP No.3 after its due repairs. It further says that since the laptop is now out of the warranty period, any further repairs/replacements, if required can be done at the cost of the complainant only. It is asserted by OP No.2 that it never refused to return the laptop in question to the complainant but it is the complainant who is expecting free repair, which is against the terms and conditions of the warranty. On these grounds, OP No.2 says that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint qua it deserves dismissal. 4. OP No.3 who is the service centre of OP No.2 in its reply/written statement has pleaded that the complainant approached it on 20.8.2010 reporting some problems with regard to the system and power. The laptop was duly checked and found that the motherboard was required to be replaced and the complainant was duly informed. Since, the laptop in question had a warranty of only one year, the latest complaint in respect of the alleged defects is not covered by the warranty. Therefore, the repair/replacement of the motherboard was to be done on payment basis. Since, the complainant was not coming forward to make payment for the necessary repairs, the laptop in question could not be repaired earlier. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for OP No.3. pointed out that the laptop had since been repaired and is now functional but the complainant is not coming forward to collect the same after making payment for the repairs, the same being outside the warranty period. Based on these grounds, OP no.3 has prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with costs. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs whereas none appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e. 09.05.2011, therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even in the absence of the complainant. 7. The basic facts of the case have already been incorporated in the foregoing paragraphs. 8. The main case of the complainant against the OPs is that she had bought a brand new laptop of OP No.2 company for a total consideration of Rs.42,500/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid in cash and the remaining Rs.41,500/- through a Bank draft on 10.8.2008. As per the complainant, when she approached OP No.3 i.e. the HP authorised service centre for carrying out repairs in the laptop on 20.8.2010, they did not carry out the repairs and the laptop was still lying with them unrepaired. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs for not repairing the laptop and returning the same to her after doing the needful. 9. OP No.1 is only the dealer who had sold the new laptop to the complainant through her Institute i.e. Chitkara Institute in Computer Science and Engineering. They did not have much role to play in the present case. In its affidavit, OP No.1 has stated that the laptop was carrying the warranty of three years and the fact of its purchase by the complainant from it has also been admitted. It is stated that the complainant has never approached this OP in respect of any alleged defect in the laptop. It further says that the services under warranty are to be provided at the authorised service centre only (OP-3). On these grounds, OP No.1 has prayed that it be relieved from any liability in the present case apart from paying cost of litigation to it. 10. OP No.2 is the company who had manufactured the laptop and who are fully responsible for the quality and maintenance of the laptop. In its reply, the entire focus of OP No.2 against the complainant is that the laptop in question had a warranty of one year and after the lapse of one year, the service centre of the OP (OP No.3) would repair or rectify the defects only on chargeable basis as per terms of the warranty but the complainant was not willing to pay up the amount for the repairs and wants the repairs to be done free of cost, which is not permissible under the terms of the warranty, which had already expired. On these grounds OP No.2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost as there is no deficiency in service on its part. 11. After having a detailed study and analysis of the entire case including the pleadings on record, it is quite clear that the complainant had purchased a new laptop on 10.08.2007 by paying a sum of Rs.42,500/- to the OPs. The laptop in question was repaired on earlier two occasions i.e. on 11.4.2008 wherein OPs replaced battery and the adapter free of cost. Subsequently, the laptop came for repairs to the OPs on 25.7.2008 and in the process of repair, OP no.2 replaced the display and the unit became functional. But the third time, the laptop again became defective on 20.8.2010 and the complainant took the same to the service centre of OPs i.e. OP No.3. The alleged complaint was in respect of the power and system of the laptop and OP No.3 found that the motherboard needs to be replaced to make it fully functional. Taking a stand that the laptop in question carried only one year warranty, OPs refused to change the motherboard free of cost and expected the complainant to pay the full price to get the laptop repaired. On the contrary, the contention of the complainant is that the laptop in question carried warranty of three years instead of one year. This fact has also been admitted by way of affidavit by OP No.1 who is the dealer-cum-seller of the laptop. There is also a document on record, (now marked by us as Annexure X), which shows three types of warranties as under: - 1. HP Care Pack valid for a period of 3 years and 2 months; 2. Base Warranty valid for a period of 14 months and; 3. HP Support for initial setup warranty valid for a period of 6 months. 12. It is not at all clear, which out of the three warranties, was extended by the OPs to the complainant but it is admitted by OP No.1, the dealer-cum-seller, the laptop in question carried warranty of three years. Giving the benefit of doubt to the complainant, we take the warranty period as three years and two months in the present case i.e. period up to 14.10.2010. Keeping this date in view, the laptop in question is duly covered within the warranty period as on 20.8.2010. Despite all that, OPs have refused to take care and carry out the necessary repairs to the laptop till date and insisted repeatedly that the laptop could be repaired and returned to the complainant only on payment basis. This demand of OPs is patently illegal and unacceptable. It is the duty of the OPs especially OPs No.2 and 3, who are the manufacturer and the service centre respectively, to ensure that all necessary repairs should be carried out to the laptop free of cost within a period of three years and two months from the date of its purchase as per their own commitment given to the complainant on 12.08.2007. Admittedly, this has not been done by these OPs, which constitutes serious deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. 13. Keeping in view the foregoing, in our considered view, there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and the same deserves acceptance. We, therefore, decide the same in favour of the complainant and against OPs No.2 and 3 and pass the following order to be complied with by OPs No.2 and 3, jointly and severally:- (i) OPs No.2 and 3 shall repair the laptop in question completely including replacement of the motherboard, if so required, free of cost and make it fully functional and handover the same to the complainant. (ii) OPs No.2 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing her physical harassment, mental agony and pain. (iii) OPs No.2 and 3 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 14. This order be complied with by OPs No.2 and 3 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from 20.8.2010 till the date of actual payment besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and also doing the needful as at (i) of Para No.13 above. 15. The complaint qua OP No.1, who is the dealer-cum-seller of the laptop, is dismissed without cost as it does not have any role to play in the repairs or replacement of the defective laptop. 16. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th May 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
