THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 463 of 2014
Date of Institution : 25.8.2014
Date of Decision : 01.07.2015
Harpratap Singh Bath S/o Bakshi Bhagwan Singh R/o H.No. 9-A, Block C, Guru Amardass Avenue,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
HCL Infosystem Ltd., 605111 Pundhuchery, India through its Prop./Partner, MD
TV 18 Home Shopping Network Ltd., 7th Floor, FC 24, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida 201301 through its Prop./partner/MD
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajvinder Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Rajesh Kashyap,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Harpartap Singh Bath under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that after watching the Advertisement of opposite party No.1 on the TV , he placed an order for the purchase of Laptop vide order reference No. ITS/2011/02/1402 on 8.2.2011 through online . The said Laptop was of Rs. 24500/-, which the complainant paid in cash on receiving the product. Complainant has alleged that opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 supplied the Laptop to the complainant on January 4,2012 which was received by the complainant alongwith letter dated 4.1.2012 . On the installation note the model number of the Laptop is mentioned as AEIV232IP HCL Laptop LFG OK 51. On 17.9.2012 the said Laptop became defective. The complainant lodged complaint at the helpline number as well as on telephone vide complaint No. 8500784259 , but nobody turned up from the opposite party to attend the complaint. The complainant submitted that he received telephone call from one Maninder Singh, who told the complainant to conduct Balraj Singh on his mobile. The complainant contacted Balraj Singh who stated that complainant should contact one Ramnik Singh on his mobile phone. Then complainant contacted Ramnik Singh. Said Ramnik Singh visited the house of the complainant. Said Ramnik Singh told the complainant that model number of the Laptop does not tally with the model number of the Laptop mentioned on the order form, so he is
-3-
unable to help the complainant. The complainant submitted that model number on the order form is AEIV2332P HCL ME Laptop LFG OK 51 3111AE 782324. HCL ME Laptop L 51 Intel GL 40, whereas the number and model mentioned on the Laptop is HCL ME ICON M 74 Serial No. 9111AEO 14678 HCL Infosystem Ltd. PDY India. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the Laptop with new Laptop. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant on 13.1.2012 placed order for HCL ME Laptop with unique ME feactures and genuine windows + 3 years McAfee Anti Virus and Laptop bag worth Rs. 24500/- with opposite party . On 19.1.2012 complainant received the said product at his address. It was submitted that on 17.9.2012 complainant called the call centre of opposite party No.2 and enquired about the HCL Area Service Centre details, which were provided to the complainant. But the complainant never approached their service centre nor the opposite party for any defect in the product. It was submitted that they have delivered the product as was received from opposite party No.1 to the complainant. If the alleged model number is changed, then it would have been done by opposite party No.1 as replying opposite party has nothing to do and have no concern with manufacturing of the said product. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of
-4-
complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.2014.
4 Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to C-5.
5 Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Arrabaditya Desgupta authorized signatory Ex.OP2/1, resolution Ex.OP2/2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant placed an order for the purchase of Laptop on 8.2.2011 through online Ex.C-2 . The price of the said Laptop was Rs. 24500/- . The complainant paid in cash on receiving the product. The complainant alleges that opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 supplied the Laptop to the complainant on January 4,2012 which was received by the complainant alongwith letter dated 4.1.2012 Ex.C-2. On the installation note, the model number of the Laptop is mentioned as AEIV232IP HCL Laptop LFG OK 51. On 17.9.2012 the said Laptop became defective. The complainant lodged
-5-
complaint at the helpline number as well as on telephone vide complaint No. 8500784259 . But nobody turned up from the opposite party to attend the complaint. The complainant submitted that he received telephone call from one Maninder Singh, who told the complainant to contact Balraj Singh on his mobile. The complainant contacted Balraj Singh who stated that complainant should contact one Ramnik Singh on his mobile phone. Then complainant contacted Ramnik Singh. Said Ramnik Singh visited the house of the complainant. Said Ramnik Singh told the complainant that model number of the Laptop does not tally with the model number of the Laptop mentioned on the order form. The complainant submitted that model number on the order form is AEIV2332P HCL ME Laptop LFG OK 51 3111AE 782324. HCL ME Laptop L 51 Intel GL 40, whereas the number and model mentioned on the Laptop is HCL ME ICON M 74 Serial No. 9111AEO 14678 HCL Infosystem Ltd. PDY India. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party has supplied Laptop which is not tallying with the Laptop the order for which placed by the complainant to the opposite party and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that complainant on 13.1.2012 placed order for HCL ME Laptop with unique ME feactures and genuine windows + 3 years McAfee Anti Virus and Laptop bag worth Rs. 24500/- with opposite party
-6-
On 19.1.2012 complainant received the said product at his address. The complainant never raised any dispute regarding the delivery of the said product. On 17.9.2012 complainant called the call centre of opposite party No.2 and enquired about the HCL Area Service Centre details, which were provided to the complainant. But the complainant never approached their service centre nor the opposite party for any defect in the product. Ld.counsel for opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant himself is not clear as to when he placed the order for the Laptop. The complainant did not produce any placement order. He has produced installation note Ex.C-3 which is dated 8.2.2011 which shows that the product was installed at the premises of the complainant on 8.2.2011. Whereas the complainant himself has produced on record letter dated 4.1.2012 Ex.C-2 vide which opposite party No.2 told to the complainant that delivery of the product will happen within next 10-12 working days which shows that the product was not delivered to the complainant upto 4.1.2012 as is evident from this letter Ex.C-2. Further the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-4 the list of accessories purchased by the complainant for this Laptop which is dated 26.9.2011 . The Laptop was not delivered to the complainant uptill 4.1.2012, how the complainant has purchased the accessories on
-7-
26.9.2011 as per list Ex.C-4. Apart from this complainant could not produce any cogent evidence as to what was the defect in the product i.e. Laptop. The complainant did not produce any job sheet from the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 regarding any defect in the Laptop in question.
10. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to point out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
1.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
