Delhi

East Delhi

CC/476/2014

ANAND SWARUP - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.476/14

Mr.ANAND SWARUP VERMA

S/O LATE Shri BALJEET

R/O D-447, WEST VINOD NAGAR MANDAWALI

1.  
2.  

 

•  

 

1. BANSAL BUSINESS CORPORATION

38, VEER SAWARKAR-BLOCK SHAKARPUR

1.  

 

2.  HCL INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,

E-4, 5,6, SECTOR-XI NOIDA

 

                                                                                                                           ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.05.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 23.04.2018

Judgment Passed on: 25.04.2018

CORUM:

Shri SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY:  HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by Shri Anand Swarup Verma, against Bansal Business Corporation (OP-1) and HCL Info systems Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2), with the allegations of deficiency in services.
2. The facts of the present complaint are that on 24.06.2013, the complainant purchased HCL Desk Top 4133aa616154 bearing serial no. Aa2v1355n from OP-1 for Rs.20,800/- (though in the complaint it is written 20,300/-) for which invoice no. BBCB/R1/6533/2013-14, where he has assured regarding quality of the product. It has been stated that on the very first day the said Desk Top was defective and in the month of December 2013 it stopped working for which the customer care of OP-2 was informed. On 09.12.2013 an Executive visited the complainant house and took the hard disk by issuing Job Sheet no. 65517 and assured that the same shall be repaired and returned by 12.12.2013. Despite legal notice dated 23.01.2014 the hard disk was neither returned nor was Desk Top repaired. Hence, the present complaint seeking direction to OP to refund the cost of the said Desk Top i.e.  Rs. 20,300/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The complainant has annexed invoice issued by OP-1 dated 24.06.2013, warranty card, service report dated 09.12.2013, E.mail dated 08.12.2013 to 11.01.2014 and legal notice dated 25.01.2014 with the complaint.
4. Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they have stated that they were mere retailers of the product thus they cannot be held for any guarantee/warranty and repair and they have denied all the contents of the complaint.
5. Reply was filed by OP-2 where they have taken the plea that first time the complaint was lodged with the technical staff on 09.12.2013, it was duly attended. It was stated OP-1 was not authorized dealer of OP-2 but reseller. Hence, OP-2 was not liable for any sale. It was further stated that market value of the desktop in question was Rs.15,500/- and desktop was manufactured by OP-2 had warranty of one year in contrast to 3 years warranty given by OP-1 but as a good will gesture the technical staff registered the complaint and was attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. it was further submitted that the complainant had installed pirated software and used the product without UPS which had damaged the hard disk. OP-2 has submitted that the complainant was offered a new desktop but the same was refused. Rest all the contents of the complaint has been refuted seeking dismissal of the complaint.

General Power of Attorney, warranty terms and conditions have been annexed as Annexure OP-2/1, OP-2/2, letter by OP-2 to complainant as Annexure OP-2/3 have been annexed with the reply.

6. Evidence was filed by way of affidavit by the complainant where he has got examined and has reiterated the contents of the complaint.
7. OP examined Shri S.S. Jina, Manager Legal and authorized representative which has also deposed on oath the contents of their reply and have got Exhibited the copy of the authority letter as EX.OP-2/1, letter to OP-2 to the complainant as EX.OP-2/2.
8. We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP-2. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant had purchased the desktop for Rs.20,800/- (though in the complaint in evidence it has been mentioned Rs. 20,300/-) from OP-1 but nothing has placed on record by    OP-2 to show that the price of the said product was Rs.15,500/-, however, if we took a look at Exhibit OP-2/2 which is undated letter to the complainant wherein the complainant has been informed regarding the availability of the spare part. When OP-2 is willing to replace the hard disk with the new one. They are estopped for taking the plea that the same was purchased from an unauthorized dealer, however, as per the policy terms and conditions annexed as Annexure     OP-2 /2 clause-2 as “All our products carry a basic warranty as defined in the warranty card. For products with one year warranty, customer can extend the warranty, customer can extend the warranty to 3 years by purchasing a warranty extension pack” when product was under warranty OP-2 is liable to repair the same and have also shown their willingness regarding that. Hence, we direct OP-2 to repair desktop with extended warranty of six months. We further award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony inclusive of litigation expenses as OP-2 has failed to place on record any proof of delivery of the letter showing their intention to repair desk top. This award is inclusive of litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

DR P.N.TIWARI                                                                               HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                              

    MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER      

 

 

SUKHDEV SINGH

PRESIDENT