DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:16 of 2011] Date of Institution : 12.01.2011 Date of Decision : 22.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Rupinder Singh Rai son of Sh. Gurdev Singh resident of House No.413, New Azad Nagar, Ferozepur City. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Hawlett Packard (HP) India Sales Private Limited, Tower D, 6th Floor, Global Business Park, Mehroli, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon. 2. Diksha Computers, SCO No.72, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road near Gurudawara, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory. 3. R.T. Outsourcing Services Limited, SCO No.30, 1st Floor, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its authorised signatory. 4. HP Authorized Service Centre, Ferozepur Road, Radhof Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Nagpal Agency, Ludhiana through its authorised signatory. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the complainant. None for OP No.1. OPs No.2 to 4 already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Rupinder Singh Rai has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) To replace the Laptop in question with a new one or in alternative pay its price; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.3,300/- as costs of litigation. iv) To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as legal fee on account of legal notice; v) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Laptop make HP (DV4-3103TU) from OP No.1 on 01.02.2010 for Rs.43,000/- vide invoice (Annexure C-1). According to the complainant, the said Laptop started giving problem of “hang off” from the very beginning. Sometimes, it became very hot on its consistent use for one or two hours. On the asking of OP No.2 (Dealer), the complainant sent his Laptop to OP No.3 i.e. the authorised service centre of OP No.1 (manufacturer company) through courier on 27.3.2010 for rectification of the defect. OP No.3 replaced the Hard Disk of the Laptop and made it functional. It is averred that in the month of May 2010, the said defect again occurred. On the asking of OP No.2, the complainant this time approached OP No.4 i.e. the authorised service centre of HP at Ludhiana. OP No.4 after retaining the said Laptop for 1 ½ months, returned the same to the complainant with the assurance that the defect has been removed. According to the complainant, the defect in the Laptop has not been removed permanently and it is still having the said manufacturing defect. It is pleaded that despite several personal visits to OPs and requests, the defect in the Laptop has not been removed and the same still persists. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the said Laptop as the OPs have failed to remove the said defect. According to the complainant, selling a defective Laptop having manufacturing defect to him amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written reply filed by OP No.1, the factum of being the manufacturing company of the HP Laptop in question has been admitted. It has been pleaded that the said Laptop was purchased by the complainant on or around 01.02.2010 and the same had a warranty of one year till 17.01.2011. According to OP No.1, the said Laptop had been used for certain period by the complainant and the same is in absolute working condition. It has been pleaded that as per the records of the calls logged to the Customer Care Center available with OP No.1, the Laptop in question was reported for repairs on four instances. According to OP No.1, the Laptop in question was mishandled and brought at the service centre for physical damage repairs. It has further been asserted that to rectify the hanging problem in the Laptop, its battery, adapter, Hard Disk Drive and Optical Disk Drive were replaced by its authorised service centre. It has been admitted by OP No.1 that the complainant took his Laptop to OP No.3 for rectification of the defect on its advice. It has been specifically been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the Laptop. As per OP No.1, even the complainant has not led any evidence or expert opinion to prove the fact of the Laptop having inherent or manufacturing defect. According to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the op No.1 on the date of final hearing i.e.20.09.2011. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the absence of OP No.1. OPs No.2, 3 and 4 failed to put in appearance despite due service of notice and therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 28.02.2011. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Laptop in question from OP No.2 on 01.02.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.43,000/- as its price vide Invoice (Annexure C-1). It has also not been disputed that said Laptop was having a problem of “hang off” for which it was sent to OP No.3 for rectification of the defect through courier on 27.03.2010. Though OPs No.2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Forum yet OP No.1 i.e. the manufacturing company has contested the case and filed a detailed reply. In its reply, OP No.1 has specifically mentioned that as per the records of the calls logged to the Customer Care Center available with OP No.1, the Laptop in question was reported for repairs on four instances. It has also been admitted that the battery, adapter, Hard Disk Drive and Optical Disk Drive of the laptop were replaced by its authorised service centre to rectify its “hang off” problem. Thus, it is proved on record that the laptop manufactured by OP No.1 was having some inherent problem for which the customer service centre replaced its major parts like battery, adapter, Hard Disk Drive and Optical Disk Drive. It is the case of the complainant that the said Laptop is still giving the same problem. Since the laptop is giving the same problem of “hang off” even after its repair, in our considered view, it must be having some inherent or manufacturing defect, which cannot be repaired. The Laptop in question has also lost its originality because of replacement of its parts at such a short interval from its purchase. 7. In case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Cdr. Udaybi reported in I(2008) CPJ-490 (NC), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that where the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop for rectifying the defects on number of occasions and even thereafter the said defects were not set right, it amounts to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in the case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Charan Negi reported in IV(2007) CPJ 167. The Hon'ble State Commission has further held as under: “A consumer purchases new article to save himself from the inconvenience of second hand article as in the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to take the vehicle time and again for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable and in such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately”. 8. In view of the above judgement, the OPs cannot avoid their liability to repair/replace the defective Laptop in question. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the laptop in question is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to OPs: - (i) to refund an amount of Rs.43,000/- to the complainant being the Invoice Price of the Laptop in question subject to returning the defective Laptop to OPs; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.3,300/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.53,000/- i.e. (Rs.43,000 + Rs.10,000) to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the dates of filing the complaint i.e.12.01.2011 till its realization besides payment of Rs.3,300/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 22nd September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
[Complaint Case No:16 of 2011] ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 20.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 22.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
