Delhi

North East

CC/118/2013

SH. SURINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 118/2013

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Surinder Singh S/o Sh Rhan Singh R/o E-2, East Jyogi Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110093 (Please dispatch order on new address)	Complainant
	Versus
1	HCL Infosystem Ltd. D-233, Sector-63, NOIDA UP-201301
2	Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt Ltd. C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110093	Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	08-04-2013
	DATE OF DECISION      :	28-02-2017

 

 

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

 

1. As per complaint, the complainant, on 11.03.2012, purchased a Laptop of OP1 make from OP2 for Rs. 28,990/-. This Laptop had a warranty of one year. Within 10 months the Laptop started malfunctioning. Complaint of defect was made on 13.01.2013 to OP1. On 14.01.2013 one Mr. Sheesh Pal, Service Engineer of OP1 collected the Laptop for repair, from complainant’s house by issuing service call note with Sl. No. LN6567 showing Line Problem in the screen of Laptop. On 18.01.2013 the Laptop was returned after repair by replacing LCD screen of the Laptop with service call Note Sl No. LN 5677. Again complaint for malfunctioning of DVD of Laptop was lodged by complainant to OP’s service centre the same day. In response Service Centre agent of OP1 collected Laptop from complainant by reporting the problem, as DVD not booting vide service call note no. 6581 on 19.01.2013. OP, kept Laptop for 11-12 days but failed to rectify the problem and returned the DVD R/W of Laptop on 31.01.2013 by issuing same call note no. 6597 again complainant having problems approached same service centre of OP1 who by issuing service report NO. AN64302 reported the problem as no display and DVD R/W not booting. After keeping the Laptop for 15 days OP returned the same on 16.02.2013 saying that they are unable to repair it vide Service Report No. AN 64323. As Laptop was within warranty and OP1 could not repair it, complainant requested to either replace the Laptop or refund price. But OP was not willing to rectify or replace it. Even legal notice dated 04.03.2013 was not replied by OP, inspite of service. Pleading negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs by selling defective product, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 28,990/- the price of Laptop, with interest from the date of purchase till realization @ 18% p.a.  or replacement of the said HCL Laptop  with new one, besides Rs. one lac compensation for harassment, mental agony, torture and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Both the OPs were served but only OP1 by putting its appearance contested the case while OP2 didn’t put its appearance and defend the complaint. Thus OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. OP1 by filing its reply has submitted that complainant has used the Laptop hassle free for full 10 months and when defect arose the same was promptly attended by service centre of OP1 who returned the same after repairing. Whenever the complaint was lodged, the Laptop was repaired with the report okay to the satisfaction of complainant. Last complaint was on 18.02.2013. Copy of the service report dated 18.02.2013 has deliberately not been filed by complainant as the report shows the system is okay. Thus, complainant has not come with clean hands. Thereafter, till the expiry of warranty period on 13.03.2013 there is no complaint of any defect therein. All the complaints were given best and satisfactory services. Even certain parts of Laptop i.e. L65 PCB, ODD, PCB were replaced, when found defective. Regarding manufacturing defect OP1 states that there is no manufacturing defect as complainant used the Laptop smoothly for continuous 10 months. Complainant’s allegation that OP2 was dealer of OP1 is also denied by OP1, further submitting that he is not an authorized dealer but selling OP1’s products on its own. Now, as the warranty has already been expired, complainant is not entitled for any benefit for rectification and replacement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It was only due to the fault, of complainant, by not using genuine software that there were problems in the laptop and not due to any original defect in laptop.
4. Complainant in rejoinder to reply of OP1, submits that if there had been satisfactory service the complainant would not have repeatedly lodged the complaint as also acknowledged by OP1 service centre. Defence of not using genuine software is also denied by complainant further asserting that he used only genuine software.
5. Complainant and OP1 both filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence.
6. Heard and perused the records.
7. As per record Laptop in question was working without any complaint for continuous 10 months and it was only on 13.01.2013 that first defect occurred in the laptop which is within warranty period of one year. Ex-CW1/C the service report dated 14.01.2013 issued by OP1’s Engineer show problem reported as line problem and observation and action taken as picked the Laptop. But again same problem arose and as per CW1/D LCD Screen was replaced by OP1 on 18.01.2013. Thereafter, EX CW1/E dated 14.01.2013 shows problem of DVD not booting and vide CW1/F DVD was also replaced on 31.01.2013. Again Ex CW1/G shows that there was problem of no display and DVD (R/W) not booting on 2.2.2013. But again as per Ex CW1/H DVD was reported not working and problem was pending even after passing 15 days. Ex- CW/I is a notice dated 4.3.2013 issued to OPs in which complainant has stated that OPs could not repair the laptop even after 33-34 days. And as per EX CW1/H even after 15 days of complainant problem was sustaining and service engineer returned the Laptop on 16.02.2013 showing its inability to repair the same.
8. OP1 filed two documents i.e one authority letter and other as exhibit OP1/2 photocopy of an undated service report which shows that call was attended on 04.02.2013 and completed on 18.02.2013.
9. On the basis of above finding we are of the view that complainant used the Laptop for about 10 months free of defects. Thereafter, it became defective. On the first defect in the Laptop it was within warranty. Complainant tried its best to get the same rectified but OPs failed to rectify the same. Complainant has filed carbon copies of all exhibits, while OP1 filed only photocopies of a service report as exhibit OP1/2. This exhibit seems baseless and fabricated as it is an undated report. Sign of the customer also not tally, besides the report shown in this document have also cutting thereon. Thus, the same can’t be admitted as evidence.
10. Thus, we are of the considered view that OP1 have failed to rectify the Laptop in question even after so many complaints lodged by complainant and attended by OP1. As per service document the Laptop being not repairable establishes that there is manufacturing defect in the Laptop. OPs are liable to replace the same as the Laptop was still within warranty period. So far the liability of replacement is concerned, though OP2 didn’t appear and contest the complaint but the warranty is the responsibility of OP1 only.
11. Therefore, holding guilty to both the OPs for, adopting unfair trade practice by selling a Laptop having manufacturing defect and deficiency in service beside harassment, we direct OP1 to replace the Laptop (Model L 65 – HCL) with brand new Laptop of the same model with remaining warranty to the satisfaction of complainant, failing which Rs. 28,990/-, the price of the Laptop be refunded to complainant. We also direct both the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- litigation cost jointly and severally.
12. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of order of this Forum.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14. File be consigned to record room.
15. Announced on  28.02.2017 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member