DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.502 of 2009
Commet Business Solutions
through its Proprietor
Mr. Vishal Kapoor
Residence/Office at 217-C,
New Layal Pur Colony
Krishna Nagar
Delhi-110051 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Managing Director
Hewlett-Packard India
Sales Pvt. Ltd. Tower-D, Sixth Floor
Global Business Park
Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road
New Delhi
2. HP Authorized Service Centre
through its Manager
A-200, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020
3. Ms Deep Shikha (given up on 15-11-2011)
C/o H. P. Authorized Service Centre
A-200, Okhla Industrial Area
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020
4. M/s M. M. Info Tech
B-15/1, Deepali Building
92, Nehru Place
New Delhi-110010 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 23.06.09 Date of Order : 12.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Laptop, make Compac Model No.Q-40/144 TU S.No. CND 8441Y9F on 06.04.09 for an amount of Rs.32,800/- including VAT from OP No.4 manufactured by OP No.1. The laptop started creating problems and it showed physical dump memory and restart after about 100 seconds. He contacted OP No.4 who advised him to contact OP No.2. The OP No.2 allotted a complaint No.2607195865 and assured him that the laptop will be replaced immediately with the same specification within 4-5 days. He contacted OP No.2 and they informed him that the laptop will not be replaced but will be repaired. He again requested the OP No.2 to replace the same. He visited the office of OP No.2 and showed the demo of the laptop and it was showing the same problem. He again deposited the laptop on 29.04.09 with OP No.2 and was assured by the OP No.3 that the laptop will be replaced with new one. Even after assurance and promises given by OP No.2 & 3 no action was taken by them. He again visited the office of OP No.2 on 02.05.09 but the problem was the same in the laptop. As he was dealing in trading of computer, peripherals and his good clientage is in Delhi and NCR, due to this transaction he had not only lost the business but also suffered huge financial/business loss and reputation in business circle. He sent a legal notice on 13.05.09 to the OPs. The OP No.2 informed him to collect the laptop from their service centre on or before 12.06.09 failing which they will be charging demurrage charges to the tune of Rs.500/- to recover the cost of maintaining the unit. Due to gross negligence on the part of OPs, he suffered huge loss and damages of about Rs. 2,00,000/- and, hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to pay sum of Rs.2,32,800/- (Rs. 32,800/- price of laptop and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss and damage) alongwith interest @ 24% towards pain, agony and suffering undergone by the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay the cost of the litigation.
OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.02.2010 passed by our Predecessors.
OP No.2 (in fact RT Outsourcing Services Ltd.) in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the laptop had certain minute problems and complainant approached the OP No.2 for repairing the same but they had not made any promise or assurance that the laptop will be replaced. OP-2 diagnosed the error as “Blue Dump Error” on 21.4.2009 and rectified the same and delivered the laptop to the complainant on 29.04.09. It is admitted that the Complainant was showed the demo on 29.4.2009 but it is denied that the same defect was detected in the laptop. It was realized that the web camera of the laptop was not functioning properly and after repairing, the laptop was returned to him. OP-2 realized that the Complainant had come alongwith the pirated media installed therein and the possibility of the defect in the laptop being due to the pirated media installed cannot be ruled out. As per clause 7 of the HP terms and condition of Sale and Service the HP would be under no obligation to provide support due to any alteration or modification in software not authorized by HP for which customer cannot provide sufficient proof of valid licence. After repair work the laptop was delivered to the Complainant on 04.05.09 to the full satisfaction of the Complainant. The Complainant again approached on 05.05.09 with the problem that the web camera was not functioning properly. The laptop was rectified by the OP No.2 by 08.05.09 but the Complainant did not come to take the delivery of the laptop. On 28.08.09 OP No.2 contacted the Complainant through a mail and informed the Complainant that the laptop had been repaired on 08.05.09 and requested him to take the delivery of the laptop on or before 12.06.09 but OP-2 did not receive any response from him. They again sent a letter dated 15.06.09 but they did not receive any response from the Complainant. The sole intention of the Complainant in filing the Complainant is to pressurize them to extort a new laptop and to defame and damage their reputation and goodwill. The Complainant had purchased the laptop for commercial purpose and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Thereafter OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte
OP No.3 has been given up by the Complainant on 15.11.11.
OP No.4 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.02.2013.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No. 2 and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and written arguments.
We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased a Laptop, make Compac Model No.Q-40/144 TU on 06.04.09 for an amount of Rs.32,800/- including VAT from OP No.4 manufactured by OP No.1. The Complainant himself has admitted that he is dealing in trading of computer, peripherals and his clientage is in Delhi and NCR; that due to negligence of the OPs he had loss of business and also suffered huge financial/business loss and reputation in the business circle. He has assessed the loss and damage to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The OP No.2 in its written statement has stated that the Complainant purchased the laptop for commercial purpose and hence he is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is evident from pleading of both the parties that the transaction was for commercial purpose. Nowhere in the complaint or in his affidavit he has stated that he was carrying on the business for earning his livelihood or it was his sole source of income.
Secondly, replacement of laptop cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the complainant unless and until there is some manufacturing defect in it. In the present case, it is not the case of the complainant that the laptop in question had any manufacturing defect. Repairs developed in the laptop in question were rectified by OP-2. Therefore, it not being a case of manufacturing defect, the complainant is not entitled to the replacement of the laptop in question. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no case of deficiency in service is made out. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.05.16.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Case No. 502/09
12.5.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
