Delhi

East Delhi

CC/151/2015

MS ANURADHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                          Consumer complaint no.          151/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  04/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 14/08/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          16/08/2018 

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Ms. Anuradha Kaushik, adult  

s/o- Sh Virendra Dutt Kaushik

R/o  118, Munirka Vihar, SFS Flats

Munirka, New Delhi ..……………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s  HCL infosystem  Ltd.   

110, V 4, Karkarduma District Centre,

Karkardume, Delhi 110092

 

2- M/s  SSDN Info Solutions        

G-2, Raja House, 30-31,

Nehru Place, New Delhi …………………………………………..Opponents

 

Complainant Advocate……………………….……….C. M. Sharma   

Opponent 1 Advocate………………………………….Umakant Kataria 

Opponent 2…………………………………………………..Ex Parte     

 

Quorum                                                                  Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                                 Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order - by Dr P N Tiwari, Member

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased a HCL Laptop model HCL ME ICON M 1065 vide product code AE2V0046-I, on 11/04/2013 OP2 for a sum of Rs 37500/- vide invoice no.  RH0090/2013-14 (Ex CW1/1) with standard warranty of one year (Ex CW1/2).  Complainant had also sent a mail dated 03/05/2013 for giving extended warranty of additional two year from the date of 12/04/2014 (Ex CW1/7) which was extended by OP vide email dated 16/05/2013 (Ex CW1/8). S    

The said laptop developed switch off problem within one month of its purchase. So, contacted service center/OP1 who rectified defects (Ex CW1/3), but the same defect again occurred, so complaint again made complaint and the defects were rectified. After some days, again same defect occurred, so made several complaints to OP1 on dated 07/06/2014, 08/07/2014 and on 06/08/2014, but OP1 failed to rectify the defects (Ex CW1/3,4,5 and 6) and since then the said laptop was with service centre of OP1. Despite of visit to OP1 office/service centre, Laptop could not be returned after removing defects. Felt cheated by OP2, sent a legal notice to both OPs on 07/11/2014 (Ex CW1/7) for refund of the cost of laptop Rs 37500/-with 18% interest from 30/10/2014 and compensation Rs 50,000/-for harassment. When neither laptop was returned nor defects were rectified, filed this complaint for refund of amount of Laptop Rs 37500/-with 18% interest from 30/10/2014 and compensation of Rs 50,000/- and Rs 25,000/- as litigation cost. 

Notices were served. OP1 submitted written statement and denied all the allegations put in complaint as there was no deficiency in the services of OP1. It was stated that the complainant had not mentioned service request dates 25/05/2013, 05/06/2014, 23/06/2014 and 05/07/2014 on all such dates defects were properly rectified in time and complainant was satisfied. It was specifically mentioned in their warranty card (on record) that standard warranty would be of one year and not guaranty. The specific warranty was for the products of HCL and not for software or other products sold or distributed by HCL or its authorised partners.  

The first problem occurred on 25/05/2013 for KBD problem which was rectified and laptop was handed over to complainant on 29/05/2013. Thereafter, complainant approached service centre/OP1 on 09/06/2014 with OS (operating system) corrupt and the same was resolved and laptop was handed over on 09/0/2014. The reason of problem was informed to the complainant as “using third party software” which was the violation of warranty conditions of OP1. It was stated that the complainant lastly visited OP1/service centre on 07/11/2014 and after removing defects, complainant did not come to collect her laptop and was lying at ASP office with its repair report Anne. A-1/1. Hence there was no deficiency in the services of OP1 and this complaint may be dismissed.  

OP2/seller did not appear or filed written statement despite of notices, so was preceded ExPrete.

Complainant filed her rejoinder to written statement and denied all the replies submitted by OP1. It had been stated that despite of repeated visit to the service centre, her laptop was not returned.  She had stated all the facts of her complaint in her rejoinder. She had also filed her evidences through her own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all her evidences as purchase bill, warranty card and all service sheets were on record. Hence her contents of her complaint be accepted as on record.

OP1/ HCL Infosystem Ltd filed their evidences on affidavit through Mr Kush Srivastava working as Legal Manager, who affirmed on oath that the said complainant has not mentioned true and correct facts in the complaint and had intentionally suppressed material facts, hence complaint may be dismissed. It was also stated that correct dates were not mentioned about the problems occurred during the warranty tenure which were timely rectified as per warranty conditions of OP1. It was stated that complainant visited lastly on 07/11/2014 and did not come to collect her laptop since then and filed this complaint by suppressing correct facts. So this complaint be dismissed.    

 

Arguments were heard from both the party’s counsels and records perused and order reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP1 that extended warranty was given by OP1 from 12/04/12 to 11/04/2016 and the said laptop was lying with OP1 after removing defects in software from Nov. 2014, but complainant did not collect the laptop despite informing number of times whereas complainant was insisting for refund of laptop cost.

So, we have seen merit in this complaint and pass the following order—

1. Complainant is directed to collect the laptop in good working condition from service centre/OP1 office within 15 days from the receiving of order and OP shall ensure that the said laptop is in working condition.
2. OP1 will also extend six months extended warranty from the date of handing over the laptop to the complainant.

 

1. There shall be no order to cost.  

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per Sec. 18(6) of the Consumer Protection regulations,

2005, (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Sec 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         

                                                

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh  President