Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/661/2014

Visham Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hewlett-Packard India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Parambir Singh

29 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/661/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	18.12.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	29.05.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vishwam Jindal son of Sh.Puneet Jindal through attorney Mrs.Beenu Jindal w/o Puneet Jindal r/o House No.1241, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

 

……Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., through Mr.Samarendra Nayak, Salarpuria GR Tech Park, Akash Block, Khatha No.69/3, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560066 Karnataka.

 

2.   Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized signatory/Managing Director, NDH04, Surya Hotel TD Site (NDH) Crown Plaza Surya, E-F New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065.

 

3.   Aforeserve Ltd., SCO 121-123, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Centre Head Sh.Abhinav.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN                   PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU         MEMBER

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA          MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:    Ms.Sakshi, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh. Gobind Korla, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

           OP No.3 exparte.

 

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

1.      As per the case of the complainant, he purchased an HP laptop worth Rs.45,200/- vide Annexure C-1 from CIS Computers at Chandigarh who is one of the authorized dealer/sales representative of OP No.1 on 13.10.2013 relying on the false representation that the laptop conformed to the advertised standards and was neither defective nor had any working deficiencies.  It has been averred that the unit was extremely slow, always hanging and freezing, disk usage was always 100% even when no programme/application was  running, touchpad froze after every 10 minutes etc.  Being approached the Customer Executive on centralized number, the complainant was asked to download various third party applications and repair the system without offering any support from the service centre. The complainant finished with all the instructions but the problem could not be rectified and he was directed to approach OP No.3. The complainant accordingly approached OP No.3 and on inspection, the engineer of the OP No.3 noticed various inherent defects  and initiated the process for its replacement.  The complainant received a DOA declaration letter from OP No.1 on 21.10.2013, Annexure C-2. It has been averred that after 9 days, CIS computes replaced the computer with another HP laptop of the same model on 30.10.2013. However, the changed laptop was also suffering from the same issues that the old laptop suffered from. On complaint, OP No.3 inspected the unit and agreed that certain part of the replaced unit were defective and dysfunctional.  The complainant requested OPs No.1 and 3 that he was relocating to London and would need the unit to be in a working condition before he left India.  However, the OP No.3 assured that the complainant either the unit would be repaired or replaced. According to the complainant, the unit was not repaired/replaced on his requests. Ultimately, the complainant had to board the flight to London.  Thereafter, the complainant received an e-mail dated 12.03.2013, Annexure C-5 from OP No.1/OP No.3 stating therein that the case ID was closed even when the laptop was neither replaced nor repaired. The same was protested by the complainant by writing an e-mail of the even date. According to the complainant, in London, the laptop was giving the same problems aforesaid.  Being fed up, the complainant sent back the laptop to India for its repairs by  OP No.1/OP No.3  by incurring Rs.10000/-.  The complainant lodged the complaint with OP No.1 and he was asked to follow the same procedure of calling the centralized number again. The complainant again approached OP No.3 who repaired the laptop and assured the complainant’s mother that it could be returned to the complainant as the same is working fine. The service report is Annexure C-6. Relying upon the assurance of OP No.3, the complainant’s mother sent the laptop to the complainant to London by incurring Rs.10000/-.  According to the complainant, he again faced the same problems.  After reaching India, the complainant requested OP No.1 either to repair/replace the unit to refund its price. It has been averred that the Opposite Parties failed to rectify the defect despite repeated unsuccessful attempts. Ultimately, the complainant had to purchase another laptop on 06.10.2014 for Rs.63000/-. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.      Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their reply pleaded that the complainant purchased the laptop in question after being satisfied with the condition and its performance.  The fact with regard to its purchase has been admitted.  It has been admitted that the unit in question has been replaced on 30.10.2013. However, the delay in replacing the same was due to non-availability of the same model. According to the answering OPs, as per the warranty obligation, on line support was provided as per procedure.  It has been pleaded that as and when the complainant lodged the complaints/reported the issues to the answering OPs, the service centre i.e. OP No.3 had promptly attend to the issues reported and after thorough diagnose have resolved the issues and the  laptop in question was working as per the specifications. It has been pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect or there is no performance issue with the unit. It has been pleaded that the cost of the laptop could not be refunded as per the warranty terms.  Rest of the averments as made in the compliant were denied. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.      Opposite Party No.3 was duly served through registered AD notice but despite due service it failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.03.2015.
5.      The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have perused the record.
8.      Initially, we would like to discuss the admitted and proved facts on record. An HP laptop worth Rs.45,200/- was purchased by the complainant from CIS Computers at Chandigarh  (who is one of the authorized dealer/sales representative of OP No.1) vide invoice dated 13.10.2013 (Annexure C-1). It is clear on record that soon after the purchase of the said laptop, it developed defects in its functioning. It was brought to the notice of the OPs that the unit was extremely slow, always hanging and freezing, disk usage was always 100% even when no programme/application was running, touchpad froze after every 10 minutes etc.  As Authorized Service Center i.e. OP No.3 noticed various inherent defects so it initiated the process for its replacement. Resultantly, the complainant received a DOA declaration letter from OP No.1 on 21.10.2013. It is further proved that within 9 days from the said letter, the CIS Computers replaced the defective HP laptop with another HP laptop of the same model on 30.10.2013. Unfortunately, the replaced HP laptop was also found to be defective having similar defects as were noticed in the earlier laptop i.e. extremely slow, always hanging and freezing, disk usage was always 100% even when no programme/application was  running, touchpad froze after every 10 minutes etc.
9.      In reference to the above facts, the core issue in the complaint is with regard to the demand of refund of the price of the laptop in question which the Opposite Parties declined stating that all the issues regarding the said HP laptop are resolved and the unit is working as per the specifications but the complainant is not ready to accept the same. Now it is to be determined as to whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the laptop in question or not.
10.      There is no issue regarding the purchase of the HP laptop by the complainant on 13.10.2013 and its replacement by the Opposite Parties on 31.10.2013, being a defective one.  It is well admitted by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written statement that the complainant approached them with the similar complaints as were faced in the earlier HP laptop.
11.      The e-mail correspondences on record well corroborates the facts that the replaced laptop despite being repaired 4 times could not satisfy the complainant as the problems apprised were still persisted in the said HP laptop. The job cards dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure C-6), 19.11.2014 (Annexure C-9/1), 18.11.2014 (Annexure C-9/2), further reveals that the replaced HP laptop was repaired thrice and admittedly the same was again sent for its repairs for the 4^th time when it did not function well even after the 3^rd repair. It is also admitted by OPs No.1 and 2 in their written statement that the said unit was also recalled for repairs from London as the complainant admittedly informed being relocated to London.
12.      It is not so denied by OPs No.1 and 2 that even after the 4^th repair, the complainant again approached them with the same complaint which persisted in the said laptop. OPs No.1 and 2 claimed that after repairing the said laptop they informed the complainant that the same has thoroughly being diagnosed as all the issues have been resolved and the unit is working as per the specifications but he refused to accept the same and rather insisted for the refund of its price.
13.      After perusing the e-mail correspondences and job cards on record we endorse the demand of the complainant for the refund of the amount as genuine. In our opinion, the purchasing of such an electronic gadget  is made only for convenience purposes. The very purpose of purchasing the laptop is defeated, the moment when the unit purchased did not function well and thereafter its repeated repairs gave not only inconvenience but it also leads to wastage of precious time of the complainant despite causing him physical harassment and mental agony. Further it is not right on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 to plead that the complainant has not placed on record expert opinion to prove that the said laptop was suffering from inherent defects; rather it was incumbent upon them to produce the cogent evidence proving that the said laptop is free from inherent defects. It is proved on record that the replaced unit/laptop was suffering from the same defects as was existed in the original one of the same model purchased by the complainant, so it too needs replacement by the OPs, who despite repairing it four times failed to prove that the said unit is free from any inherent defect.
14.      It is evident from the invoice Annexure C-12 that the complainant has already purchased a new laptop worth Rs.63,000/- and as such no useful purpose would be served by directing the Opposite Parties to replace the laptop in question.
15.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to be allowed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.45,200/- to the complainant

 

[b]  To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in service; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para above, apart from cost of litigation, from the date of this order, till it is paid. 

16.      The complainant has alleged to have spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- for sending the laptop from London to Chandigarh and Chandigarh to London but no proof in this regard has been placed by him and as such he is not entitled for refund of this amount.
17.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th May, 2015              

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER