The fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant being an advocate was in need of a laptop and purchased one HP Laptop windows-10 being model No. AC101TU15 along with a HP Backpack orange after paying Rs. 38,350/- from the showroom of OP No.4 on three years warranty to that product. Software were loaded such as MS office
Contd…..P/2.
-:2:-
software, adobe reader etc. and took delivery of that laptop on the said date of purchase i.e. on 17.08.2015. After that in the last week of February, 2016 that laptop stopped working, complainant contacted and visited OP No.4 on 01.03.2016 and OP No.4 asked the complainant to deposit the laptop with them for servicing and service charge was taken as Rs. 300/- and thereafter on the said date complainant took back the laptop from OP No.4 and again its stopped working/got hanged and it was deposited with the OP No.4 and on receiving phone call from OP No.4 complainant visited OP No.4 and collected the laptop and five pieces recovery C.Ds. by paying a sum of Rs. 350/- for service charge and Rs. 150/- for the recovery of the CD on 16.04.2016. It is further contended in the petition of complaint that on 25.05.2016 the complainant again faced that problem which was recurred in the last week of June 2016 and on 01.07.2016 complainant visited the authorized service centre of HP being the OP No.6 as the OP No.5 had asked the complainant to visit the OP No.6 as their service centre was shifted and the complainant complained of the issues/troubles faced by him to the OP No.6 and OP No.6 asked the complainant to deposit the said faulty laptop and complainant deposited the same accordingly and on 07.07.2016 complainant received a phone call from OP No. 6 and was informed to collect the laptop as the defects have been removed and complainant accordingly took delivery of the said laptop and took the same to his house and was shock to see that now an additional problem has started while complainant opened the laptop but would not able to shut down the said laptop with the touch sensor as the pointer vanishes while trying to shutdown the laptop from the shutdown option. Complainant made a phone call to OP company Hewlett Packard company and the problem was continuing and finding no other alternative complainant visited OP No.6 on 16.07.2016 and he deposited the said laptop to OP No.6 and had to purchase one desktop computer from MS Stark Infosys by paying a total sum of Rs. 27,400/- for his use and accordingly this case has been started and now the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.72,385/- for purchase of defective laptop amounting Rs.38,350/- as well as for purchase of new desktop computer amounting Rs.27,400/- including other charges for repairs of the laptop. Another sum of Rs.100,000/- has been claimed by the complainant towards negligence and deficiency in service as well as a sum Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain and agony and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the case. It appears from the case record that against all the six(6) Opposite Parties the case has been running ex-parte by virtue of orders dtd. 26.04.2017 and that of dtd. 13.11.2017. The complainant side has filed
Contd…..P/3.
-:3:-
the original tax-in-voice and some other documents including service call reports and letters of warranty. Written notes on argument is filed from the side of the complainant and heard the argument orally from the Ld. advocate for the complainant also. Now, in order to determine the case the following issues are framed:-
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Has there been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed from the part of the OPs to the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
All the three(3) issues are taken up together for consideration as those are interlinked.
This is the case of the complainant that on17.08.2015 he purchased the said HP Laptop from the OP No.4 of a total sum of Rs.38,380/- with a warranty for three years with regard to the said product but since the last week a February, 2016 complainant found that the said laptop stopped working and accordingly OP No.4 was informed. The laptop was deposited to OP No.4 for servicing and complaint paid Rs. 300/- for that as service charge and thereafter on 01.03.2006 complainant took delivery of said laptop from OP No.4 and again on 31.03.2016 problem started and complainant approached to OP No.4 and again a service charge was taken Rs. 350/- inspite of its being in warranty and thereafter complainant took the delivery of the laptop from the OP No.4. As the Laptop subsequent to that again stopped working so complainant visited the authorized service center of HP being the OP No.6 on 01.07.2016 and since then the problem on the said laptop was going on even after repairs and ultimately the complainant re-deposited the said Laptop to the OP No.6 on 16.07.2016. In context of this case we have perused the documents as filed by the complainant and it appears from the tax-in-voice that complainant is a bona fide purchaser of the laptop in question which was purchased from OP No.4 after payment of Rs. 38,350/-. In respect of this laptop while we go through the petition of complaint as well as the documents as furnished by the complainant then in absence of any contra evidence we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant after purchasing of the said laptop from OP No.4 has tried his best for repairs of the defects of the
Contd…..P/4.
-:4:-
laptop taking help of the service centre also but ultimately failed. No doubt complainant is a consumer and after purchase of the laptop for nonworking condition of the product he suffered a lot. The service which ought to have given to him during the warranty period as against purchase of the laptop that was deficient from the part of the OP No.4 as well as by the OP No.6 and the company itself which is OP No.1 cannot keep away the liability imposed upon such a renowned company with a brand in the sphere of manufacturing of laptop as it is found in this case that within eight months from the date of purchase the same became defective. Accordingly the issue nos. 1 & 2 are proved and it can safely be said that the complainant is a consumer as per definition of section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 1986 and there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed upon the complainant from the side of the OP Nos. 1, 4 & 6 here in this case. Thus the complainant entitled to get relief but in the following manner. All the issues are thus disposed of in favour of the complainant. Proper fees paid. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D,
that the instant consumer case no. 90-S-2016 be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against all the OPs in part. The OP Nos. 1, 4 & 6 are jointly and severally liable and directed to pay sum of Rs. 38,350/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand and three hundred fifty) to the complainant as price of the laptop in question along interest thereon @ 4% since the date of its purchase till its full realization by the complainant. The above three OPs are also directed to pay sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) to the complainant as compensation on account of harassment, pain and agony totaling a sum of Rs. 53,350/-(Rupees fifty three thousand and three hundred fifty) within a period of 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution.
Let a copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.
