Delhi

North East

CC/235/2017

Rajesh pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 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. 235/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rajesh Pandey S/o Sh. Devi Dutt Pandey R/o D-3 A/32, Dayal Pur Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Hewlett Packard Global soft PVT Ltd, Registered Office HP Inc. 2F, Tower D&E, Building No. 2, DLF Cybergreen , DLF Cybercity Phase III, Gurgaon Haryana : 122002	Opposite Parties

 

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

19.07.2017 11.07.2019 11.07.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, the brief facts narrated by the complainant in the present complaint are that he had purchased an HP Pavillion Spectre Laptop Model X360 13- 4013TU(L2Z81PA) manufactured by OP from PC Enterprises on 25.01.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1,28,835/- inclusive of VAT vide a retail invoice no. 47 for performing his daily professional work of graphic designing for his proprietorship firm Pixcel for the purpose of earning self livelihood. But to his utter dismay, the said laptop starting malfunctioning barely a week after purchase when it started giving flickering screen issue and audio problems in the month of February – March 2016 and contacted OP which then replaced the display panel and installed the sound driver in the said laptop. Subsequently, the recovery driver was also found faulty in the laptop for which the recovery kit ordered was paid for by the complainant which then was again ordered for the second time in April 2016. However, the problem in the laptop remain unresolved for which the complainant was asked by OP to visit its service centre at Nehru Place New Delhi in May 2016 where again for the third time a recovery kit was ordered after diagnosing defect in the laptop of audio not working despite window installation. The laptop however did not function properly in terms of its audio problem and display panel hung when in June 2016, the customer care of OP acknowledged fault with the system board / motherboard of the said laptop as diagnosed by the service centre of OP and suggested the replacement of motherboard of the laptop to repair the same since due to faulty motherboard there were recurring issues of audio and problems in running auto driver while the laptop continued to suffer from sound driver and display panel defect. When no action came forth from OP, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 01.08.2016 through his counsel to the OP demanding refund of the price of the laptop with refund of amount of Rs. 1500/- paid for recovery CDs or replace the said laptop alongwith damages. After seven months of the said legal notice, in mid April 2017, the motherboard of the laptop in question was changed by the OP but despite such a major replacement, the laptop failed to function and continued to suffer from same year old defect therein as can be seen from the service call report of April 2017 post replacement of motherboard wherein for issues of system audio not working, issue with motherboard and new motherboard replacement suggested by the service engineer on 20.04.2017 and  on complaint lodged with OP vide emails, OP offered second replacement of motherboard with a new speaker and delivered the laptop to the complainant and closed his case on 30.04.2017 thereafter paying no heed to the constant emails written by the complainant regarding recurring problem in the laptop and asking for refund of its price, which request was declined by the OP as not a part of resolution scheme of the company. The complainant issued a final reminder notice dated 15.05.2017 to the OP’s Partner Account Manager-North asking for refund of the price of the laptop within seven days of receipt of the said notice but same went unheeded to. Lastly, finding no other recourse, the complainant, aggrieved with the deficiency of service on the part of OP for delivering a defective laptop which did not function and failure on the part of the OP to take any corrective action in this regard despite series of email correspondence exchanged between complainant and OP from February 2016 to April 2017  and unfair trade practice for making the complainant run from pillar to post by extending falls promising and inducing him to part with his hard earned money, was constrained to file the present complaint praying for the issuance of direction against the OP to refund Rs. 1,28,835/- towards the cost of the defective laptop in question alongwith interest thereon @ 24% p.a. and also to refund Rs. 450/- for recovery media CD kit and also to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-  for mental tension faced by the complainant due to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and further claimed Rs. 21,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Complainant has attached copy of retail invoice dated 25.01.2016 towards purchased of the said laptop, series of email correspondence between complainant and OP customer support for the period February 2016 uptil April 2017 regarding defects in the laptop and resolution for the same specifically flickering problem, audio problem and display panel hung problem which persisted, acknowledgment of defective motherboard by OP and replacement thereof done in April 2017 and last emails from complainant asking for refund of price of laptop due to non rectification of problem, receipt of CD purchased copy of jobsheet / service call report dated 21.05.2016, copy of legal notice dated 01.08.2016 alongwith postal receipt issued by counsel for complainant to OP demanding refund of the price of the laptop or its replacement alongwith damages and expense incurred thereon, copy of service call report dated 20.04.2017 issued by OP for continued defect with motherboard despite replacement thereof done in April 2017 itself suggesting a new motherboard replacement as the system audio was still not working and copy of notice dated 15.05.2017 by complainant to OP Partner Account Manager-North.
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 01.08.2017 which was returned unserved with postal remark and fresh address given by the complainant, fresh notice was issued to the OP and was served on 30.10.2017. However, none appeared on behalf of OP and therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.01.2018.
4. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit alongwith certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of email correspondence placed on record by complainant was filed. The complainant duly exhibited the document relied upon / filed alongwith complaint as Ex CW 1/1 to CW 1/8.
5. Written argument were filed by the complainant in reassertion of his grievance against the OP of selling defective laptop, deficiency of service, unfair trade practice causing him loss of business, financial, mental and physical harassment giving rise to cause of action against the OP.
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record and have given our thoughtful consideration to both aspects. The emails placed on record speak volumes about the inherent defects in the subject laptop from the very date of its purchase which could not be rectified despite initial replacements by way of recovery disk thrice over when finally barely within five months of purchase, the OP customer support itself acknowledged and admitted problem in its motherboard suggesting its replacement. The motherboard is the back bone of the laptop and it being found defective and requiring replacement speaks volumes and proves beyond doubt that the subject laptop was having  manufacturing defect from the date of purchase, not to ignore the fact that the screen, audio system and display panel were also dysfunctional since the very date of purchase as alleged by the complainant in his initial emails between the periods February 2016 to April 2017and the same have not been refuted by OP which never appeared before this Forum to defend itself for having sold a laptop which was defective from the date of its purchase  as made out by the complainant. Therefore allegation made by the complainant regarding the OP selling defective laptop has gone unrebutted and is reliable and can be seen in perspective of emails and job sheets to corroborate / authenticate the contention. The entire material placed on record by complainant does not indicate anywhere that OP took and substantive / conclusive steps to carry out repairs in the laptop of such nature so as to render it defect free if there was no replacement / refund policy with respect thereto. The Hon'ble National Commission M.G. Electronics Vs Sham Nandlal Sharma (Dec.) Through LRS & Anr. II (2018) CPJ 239 (NC) held in a similar case of defective computer which started giving problem within short period of purchase and failure on the part of OP to take any steps the repair the same and supply it defect free to the complainant, that the order of District Forum Yavatmal confirmed by SCDRC Nagpur allowing the complaint did not suffer any infirmity thereby upholding against the OP.
7. After appreciating the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the subject laptop sold by the OP was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which despite repeated repairs could not be rectified even after replacement of its motherboard and for selling such a premium laptop which was poorly manufactured, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency for service and unfair trade practice for having failed to either replace the same or refund the price to the complainant and instead abruptly closing his complaint.
8. We therefore direct the OP to refund the cost of the laptop i.e. Rs. 1,28,835/- alongwith interest @ 9% thereon to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- cost of litigation.
9. Let the order be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  11.07.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member