Delhi

North East

CC/315/2015

Disha Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL Infosystems Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2019

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. 315/15

 

In the matter of:

	Ms Disha Chaudhary D/o Rajendra Kumar, H.No-114,Gali No-8 Ganga Vihar, Gokal Puri, East Delhi Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD. Registered Office: 806 Sidharth, 96, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019   HCL Authorised Service Centre Automation Network 110 V-4 Tower Karkardooma Dist. Center Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION   :

01.09.2015 18.10.2019 18.10.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased HCL Laptop Model AE1V3284N serial no. 7121AE299714 manufactured by OP1 from Gayatri Computers on 13.01.2013 vide invoice no. 2278 / book no. 23 for a sum of Rs. 30,500/- inclusive of vat. The said laptop carried a three years warranty on it. However it went out of order barely within 5 months of purchase and the complainant had to register repeated complaints with OP2 i.e. service centre of OP1 between 15.06.2013 to 07.07.2015 in which period, several times the subject laptop was lying with OP2 for long duration depriving the complainant of its usage for study material for her MBBS education compelling her to visit Cyber Cafes to access online data for her academic purpose. Therefore complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to replace the defective laptop alongwith compensation of  Rs. 50,000/- as damages, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation expenses.

Complainant has attached copy of purchase retail invoice dated 13.01.2013 of the subject laptop, copy of customer service report / jobsheets dated 15.06.2013, 09.01.2014, 09.01.2014, 30.07.2014, 31.07.2014, 11.09.2014, 17.10.2014, 28.10.2014, 19.03.2015, 27.04.2015, 18.05.2015 and 07.07.2015.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 06.10.2015. OP1 and OP2 were served on 19.10.2015 and 28.10.2015 respectively and entered appearance on 07.01.2016 and filed their written statement on 26.02.2016 vide which the OPs submitted that the subject laptop bearing model no. 1024 had already been replaced by the OPs with a new upgraded model no. 1044 in November 2015 and the same has been working fine in complainant’s possession to her utmost satisfaction in view of which no grievance is left towards the OPs and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint as the same is without any cause of action. The OPs admitted the factum of complainant having purchase the laptop in question in January 2013 and problems arising therein in its keyboard reported by the complainant in January 2014 when the same was replaced and again problem with display, power and audio in August 2014 which was promptly attended to by its service centre. Finally when the third complaint related to power was received from the complainant in 2015, the OPs replaced the model no. 1024 with an upgraded new model no. 1044 in November 2015.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs was filed by the complainant in which the complainant admitted to the replacement of the said laptop by OPs in November 2015 however urged that she faced mental dissatisfaction for two years due to several complaints made arising out of defects in the laptop which has caused loss in her studies and inaccessibility of study material from abroad which cannot be compensated merely by upgraded version of laptop since the complaint was filed because OP2 did not return her laptop for long durations and took very long to repair the defects and to resolve the problem in the said laptop compelling the complainant to seek legal recourse only after which the OPs replaced the defective laptop with a new one and therefore is entitled to compensation for mental and financial harassment.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reassertion / reiteration of their grievance.
6. We have heard the arguments addressed and perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

The factum of purchase of the subject laptop model no. 1024 by the complainant in January 2013 is not in dispute. OPs have themselves admitted in their written statement there were complaints received from the complainant with regard to the subject laptop in respect of its defective keyboard and display, power and audio problem January 2014 onwards till 2015 when finally OPs replaced the subject laptop with an upgraded new model no. 1044 in November 2015. There are in total 12 jobsheets/ service reports filed by the complainant between the period June 2013 to July 2015 i.e. in two years span with regard to the recurring defects in the subject laptop regarding its keyboard which was replaced twice in January 2014 and August 2014 and power, audio, auto on off, hard disk drive issues from September 2014 till July 2015. Therefore, the harassment faced by the complainant and disruption in her academic pursuit during these two and half years from June 2013 till November 2015 is palpable and veritable. Notwithstanding the fact that the subject laptop was replaced by OPs in November 2015 i.e. after the complainant had already filed the present complaint on 01.09.2015, however the mitigating factor cannot be ignored that the complainant willfully concealed the fact of replacement of the subject laptop done by the complainant in November 2015 despite appearance of her AR on 07.01.2016 and 26.02.2016 before this Forum when on the latter date the written statement was filed by OPs and this fact came to the knowledge of this Forum which was subsequently also admitted by complainant in her rejoinder filed on 06.04.2016.

During the course of oral arguments, the AR of the complainant admitted to the factum of replacement of defective laptop done by the OPs in November 2015 and limited his prayer to the relief claimed to the extent of compensation for having suffered harassment for the two and half years prior to replacement from June 2013 when the defect in the subject laptop first arose barely 5 months after its purchase. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Landmark judgment of Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch AIR 2000 SC 3138 observed that while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but also aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. Indeed no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application / calculation of damages but relevant factors be taken into a count for assessing compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles or moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge. 

7. After due appreciation of the facts and documents placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserve to be reasonably compensated for harassment for mental harassment and loss of time and adverse effect in her academic continuity due to recurring defects in the subject laptop which she suffered for two and half years due to defective laptop and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in having failed to replace the same at the right earnest but has since willfully concealed the factum of replacement of the same made by OPs, the compensation shall be awarded keeping the same in consideration. We therefore deem fit that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment and loss of studies, be directed against OPs payable to the complainant jointly and severally. Ordered accordingly. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.  File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  18.10.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member