DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.: 448 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   20.07.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   26.07.2011

Mr.Kanav Ohri s/o Dr.Ramesh Kumar Ohri, H.No.1846/1, Samadhi Gate, Main Bazar, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1]       The Managing Director, H.P. India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon (Haryana).

2]          Accord Computech Pvt. Ltd., SCO-44, Ground Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh. T.P.Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Vipul Dhirmani, Advocate for OP-1.

Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP-2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The instant complaint refers to a lis between the parties due to over pricing of laptop sold by OP-2 to the complainant.

                The complainant had purchased a HP-Pavillion-DV6-1337 TX Laptop S/R No.CNF9456J2R from OP-2 for rs.52000/- on 07.12.2009.  Not satisfied with the working of this Laptop, he had approached OP-2, who exchanged the Laptop with another laptop of Compaq Presario CQ61-408TX.  The complainant had paid Rs.52,000/- for the first laptop.  OP-2 in the exchange offer provided a 4 GB Ram along with the new laptop and refunded Rs.8000/- to the complainant. Individual prices of items have not been mentioned on the invoice.  The complainant then approached another retailer and took a quotation for the exchanged laptop (Compaq) and found that the quoted price of the laptop  was  Rs.28,500/-(Ann.C-2). The complainant then approached OP-2 for refund of the excess amount charged.  As OP-2 refused to refund, the complainant issued them a legal notice, and subsequently filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs.  The complainant has prayed for the refund of the excess amount of Rs.8000/- as well as compensation and cost of litigation.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OP-1 in its reply has denied every averment and allegation made in the complaint as the Managing Director of H.P.India Pvt. Ltd. is only an employee of Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Ltd., hence he has no Privity of Contract with the complainant.  No order can be passed against Managing Director in his personal capacity.  Further the purchase of laptop by the complainant from OP-2 and exchange of laptop by OP-2 are denied for want of knowledge. 

                The complainant has not lodged any complaint with the Customer Care Centre of the Company regarding the dispute with OP-2. OP-1 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

                OP-2 in their reply have taken the preliminary objection that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by them.  There is no manufacturing defect in the computer as the complainant has never approached the service centre for the same.

                On merits, the OP-2 has admitted the sale of laptop for Rs.52,000/- vide invoice dated 07.12.2009.  The complainant had purchased this laptop after pre-delivery inspection to his entire satisfaction.  The computer never suffered from any defect and the complainant never approached the Service Centre for any problem in the computer.  However, as the computer did not suit the business requirements of the complainant, he approached Op-2 for refund of the price by making a false story about defects.  OP-2, however, as a gesture of goodwill agreed to replace the H.P.Laptop with a laptop of Compaq having value of Rs.34,500/-.  They also supplied a 4 GB Ram worth Rs.4800/- and a laptop bag for Rs.2500/-. The balance amount of Rs.8000/- was refunded.  The complainant at the time of exchange also made the following endorsement on the invoice:-

“Exchange with laptop compact S/N CNF9490W36 with (4 GB Ram). Refund back Rs.8000/- (Eight thousand) with full satisfaction of the customer.”

Relying on this endorsement, OP-2 has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             The contention of the complainant with regard to excess billing has been replied by OP-2 by giving details of the items handed over to him along with their prices.  The satisfaction note of the complainant has been placed on record by the complainant himself (Ann.C-1).

6]             The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.8000/- whereas difference in price as per facts above is Rs.6000/-.

7]             It seems that the complainant is not sure of the actual amount, to be refunded.  Even the quotation placed on record is not from the company/manufacturer.  Hence, the authenticity of price as per this quotation, cannot be accepted/proved. The complaint against OP-2 is therefore dismissed. 

8]             OP-1, in our opinion, being the Managing Director of H.P.India Limited, has no role to play and hence the submissions of OP-1 being accepted in totality, the complaint qua OP-1 is also dismissed.

                        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.  After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced

26.07.2011                                                                     

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER