Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on 24.02.2021 he purchased one HP 250 G7 Notebook PC with serial No.CND0292TDD  from Opposite Party No.1 worth Rs.34,000/- vide invoice No.GST/19-20/247 dated 24.02.2021 and at the time of sale, Opposite Party No.1 also gave 12 months defect free warranty. Further alleges that since the date of purchase, said product  is not working property and is giving various problems. The complainant made so many representations and also lodged complaints with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed  to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the product in question amounting to Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till its realization   and also to pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version  and submitted that admittedly, the complainant purchased the Laptop in question from Opposite Party No.1. It is also correct  that in the month of June, 2021 the Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2, but after the month of June, 2021, the complainant never approached the Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.1 received any complaint from the complainant, however, only Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are responsible to redress the grievances of the complainant and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 may please be dismissed.    

3.       None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 Company, and hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.  

4.       Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant has purchased the laptop from Opposite Party No.1 who is not an authorized dealer or authorized support service provider of HP answering Opposite Parties and the answering Opposite Parties is neither responsible nor liable for the acts and assurances of Opposite Party No.1 or its representatives to the complainants in their independent capacity. Moreover, there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service being established against this Opposite Party and hence, the allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality.    On merits, Opposite Party No.3 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3.

5.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C27 and closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence  the attested written version Ex.OP3/1 alongwith copy of authorization letter Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. Whereas vide separate statement, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 stated that  he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3  and also gone through the documents placed on record.

8.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one HP 250 G7 Notebook PC with serial No.CND0292TDD  from Opposite Party No.1 worth Rs.34,000/- vide invoice No.GST/19-20/247 dated 24.02.2021 and at the time of sale, Opposite Party No.1 also gave 12 months defect free warranty. Further alleges that since the date of purchase, said product  is not working property and is giving various problems. The complainant made so many representations and also lodged complaints with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed  to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has purchased the laptop from Opposite Party No.1 who is not an authorized dealer or authorized support service provider of HP answering Opposite Parties and the answering Opposite Parties is neither responsible nor liable for the acts and assurances of Opposite Party No.1 or its representatives to the complainants in their independent capacity. Moreover, there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service being established against this Opposite Party and hence, the allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality. It is not disputed that within a span of about 4 months, the laptop started giving problems and in this regard, the complainant lodged written complaints and also so many correspondence with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not give satisfactory reply of the complaints.  It is not disputed that the Laptop in question is manufactured by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 who is manufacturer of the product in question did not bother to defend its case, rather chose to remain absent for the reasons best known to them. Not only this, the Opposite Party No.3 also did not give satisfactory reply to the complaints of the complainant with regard to defect in the product in question and it seems that there is some inherent defect in the product in question as alleged by the complainant and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that

“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 also held so.  In the instant case, the laptop  in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in  case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that 

“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”

As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C27.  The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.  

9.       Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we partly allow the complaint of the complaint and direct Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 jointly and severally to refund the price of the laptop of Rs.34,000/- (Rupees thirty four thousands only)  to the complainant (Subject to return of the laptop in question by the complainant) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are liable to make the awarded amount of Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.01.2022 till its actual realisation.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.07.2022.