Delhi

East Delhi

CC/746/2015

PRINCE GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.P INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 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. 746/15

 

Shri Prince Gupta

S/o Shri Uma Shankar Gupta

R/o H.No. 9/927, Prem Gali No. 3

Near Laxmi Cinema Hall

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110 031                                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Crown Plaza Surya

E-F, New Friends Colony

New Delhi – 110 065                                                                            ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 08.10.2015

Judgment Reserved on:17.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 18.01.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Prince Gupta has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (OP) for deficiency in services. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant had purchased a HP 15-g009AX Notebook (APU QUAD CORE) from e-tailer FLIPKART vide invoice dated 25.09.2014 for a total sum of Rs. 28,990/- vide its order ID: OD40925040929 dated 25.09.2014.  Few days later, complainant faced multiple defects in the notebook for which he lodged several complaints.  The complainant was forced to contact HP support in regard to the hard drive and CD ROM failure, which in pursuance thereof the complainant got the defects rectified by replacement of various parts. 

Again, the complainant noticed the occurrence of multiple defects with product.  He was forced to raise the issue with customer care support, but nothing had been done.  Revert received via email by the Customer Relations Case Manager itself stated their guilt of non provision of services to be provided to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 80,000/- on account of mental torture, pain and agony and Rs. 19,000/- as litigation charges.  Invoice dated 25.09.2014 is Annexure A, copy of emails with OP are Annexure B.             

3.         In reply, respondent has taken various pleas such as the engineers of OP had attended the complaint of the complainant without any delay; there was no manufacturing defect in the notebook; OP had repaired the notebook as the same was under warranty; the complainant reported the issues regarding Wi-Fi to OP on 06.05.2015, after 8 months from the date of purchase; the issue was resolved by the engineers of OP by repairing/replacing the concerned parts and  issues developed later due to the mishandling of the notebook.  Other facts have also been denied.  Copies of emails are annexed as Annexure R1 (colly). 

4.         In the rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the pleas of the respondent and has re-asserted his pleas taken in the complaint. 

5.         In support of his case, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited affidavit as Ex.CW1/1, copy of invoice dated 25.09.2014 as Ex.CW1/A and copies of emails(communications) held with OP as Ex.CW1/B (colly). 

            In defence, OP has examined Spurthi C Mouli, Legal Counsel of HP India Sales Ltd. He has deposed on affidavit and narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copies of emails showing the visit of engineer for resolving the issues (Ex.RW1/1 colly).

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It is admitted that the said notebook was within warranty, thus the parts of the notebook had been repaired/replaced free of cost.  However, if a complainant has to visit OP again and again to get different issues resolved within a year of purchase; then he is being deprived of the hassle free use of the notebook.  Apart from that the complainant being a student with low vision is dependent on notebook for this studies.  Thus, we direct OP to refund the cost of the notebook i.e. Rs. 28,990/- along interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  Further, Rs. 10,000/- are also awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony.  This includes cost of litigation also.

            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