Date of Filing:05.02.2010<br /> Date of Order: 13.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 13TH DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 246 OF 2010<br /> <br /> Southern Regional Power Committee<br /> Central Electricity Authority<br /> No. 29, Race Course Cross Road<br /> Bangalore 560 009<br /> Rep. by Assistant Secretary Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.<br /> No. 24, Salarpuria Arena<br /> Hosur Main Road, Adugodi<br /> Bangalore 560 030 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant for a direction to the opposite party to replace the defective laptop and for compensation. <br /> The facts of the case are as under:-<br /> “The Southern Regional Power Committee Secretariat is headed by Member Secretary, who is the rank of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India. He is overall in charge of SRPC Secretariat and looks after the efficient integrated Operation of Power System of Southern Region comprising of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Puducherry. SRPC also conducts various meetings in the constituent states of Southern Region.<br /> For carrying out the above responsibility very efficiently the Member Secretary has purchased the laptop. M/S Hewlett And Packard has a world wide reputation in the manufacture of electronic machineries like Desk tops, Lap tops, Printers etc. Keeping in view of their reputation in the after sales services it was decided to purchase one lap top for the use of the member secretary and the purchase details are given below.<br /> Make/Model : HP 6530S<br /> Sl. No. : CNU 908515 N<br /> Date of letter : 24.2.2009<br /> Source of Purchase : M/s. Kendriya Bhandar, Bangalore <br /> Invoice No. with date : 01597 dt.23.2.2009 and amended letter KB-BG/ SRPC/ corr/ 08-09/ 105 dated(enclosed AN-1 & 2)<br /> Price : Rs. 67,000/-+4% VAT 2,680/-<br /> =Rs. 69,680/-<br /> <br /> After the purchase of the above mentioned machine, it was found that the internet connection through WiFi was not working properly. The machine was taken to their authorized Service Centre i.e. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd, No.777K, 13th main, 100 ft road, HAL 2nd stage, Indira nagar, Bangalore-560 038. The Machine was subsequently repaired for four times on 12/10/09 (AN-3), 16/10/09 (AN-4), 03/11/09 (AN-5) and 4/1/2010 (AN-6) (Copies enclosed). The service centre could not rectify the problem and kept on lingering saying that the machine may be used.<br /> We have so far written four letters on 28/10/2009 (AN-7), 3/12/2009(AN-8), 11/01/2010(AN-9) and 22/01/2010(AN-10) to the Authorized service center to replace the faulty machine. Every time they postponed the problem in a lighter way to replace the machine but they kept on doing the some minor repairs and were gaining time. Our above mentioned four letters may be considered as notices.<br /> Our first letter dated 28/01/2009 (AN-7), which was a kind of notice has already been sent followed by another 3 letters dated 3/12/2009 (AN-8), 11/01/2010 (AN-9) and 22/01/2010(AN-10). It may be seen that our letter of 28/10/2009 (AN-7) was sent to the company about 86 days back with respect to our last letter dated 22/01/2010 (AN-10). In fact, we have been saying verbally that we will be forced to go to the Consumer Forum incase the problem is not attended to. But in order to re-stress our complaint we have mentioned our letters dated 11.01.2010(AN-9) and 22.01.2010(AN-10) that in case the machine is not replaced, we will be forced to the Consumer Court.<br /> As the above mentioned machine has been purchased solely for our member Secretary for carrying out day to day office work but the office work has suffered. Due to its failure, mental agony has also been cause which is purely because of the deficiency in the machine as well as their inability to replace the machine.”<br /> 2. The opposite party filed defence version stating that opposite party is a company engaged in several businesses including manufacturing personal laptops, computers and printers etc. Opposite party is neither responsible nor liable for the assurances and representations given by the Kendriya Bhandar, Bangalore to the complainant. Opposite party company has world wide reputation in the electronic machineries. It is a customer friendly company. If a customer has any genuine complaint company has no problem in redressing the same. Company received complaint from the complainant on 21.05.2009. Opposite party replaced the adaptor and the unit was working fine. On 14.10.2009 another complaint was received. On 30.10.2009 the opposite party received one more complaint from the complainant and the customer care centre of opposite party No. 1 again replaced the wireless board and unit was working fine. Complainant had lodged three complaints with opposite party and on all three occasions same was promptly attended. Complainant is at liberty to approach service centre at any time for the issues if any in the laptop and get the same rectified or repaired as per the warranty terms. Complainant is not entitled for replacement as prayed. Therefore, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of laptop?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation from opposite parties?<br /> 5. The complainant has produced bill to show that he has purchased laptop from Kendriya Bhandar, Bangalore on 24.02.2009 for Rs. 67,000/- + Vat at 4% Rs. 2,680/-. The complainant has produced letter dated 31.03.2009 sent to Kendriya Bhandar. The complainant has produced three service call reports. The complainant has produced 4 letters addressed to Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The opposite party submitted in the defence version that M/s. Kendriya Bhandar, Bangalore from whom the complainant has purchased the laptop is not an authorized dealer / support service provider of the HP branded computers manufactured by the opposite party. The opposite party is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and it is a reputed company having world wide reputation in the electronic field. The opposite party submitted it is a customer friendly company and if a customer has any complaint the company has no problem in redressing the same. The opposite party company has an efficient complaint redressals department and customer care centers with 24 hours toll free numbers. Such a reputed company product faced problem and found different defectives. The opposite party clearly admitted in the defence version that the complainant has given three times complaint and all the three complaints have been attended. It is very unfortunate that within a short period of purchase of laptop it was found to be defective and not working properly and the laptop was to be given to the service centre for three times. This is a very shocking aspect. The opposite party company should have immediately expressed regret for inconvenience and mental tension caused to the complainant on account of defective product. Opposite party company should have voluntarily withdrawn the laptop supplied to the complainant and supplied a new laptop free from any defects. By the facts and circumstances of the case it is very clear that the laptop supplied by the opposite party is found to be defective in nature and therefore, it is a fit case to direct the opposite party to replace with a brand new laptop in place of the defective one. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. The complainant being a ‘Consumer’ under the Act his interests requires to be protected by passing orders for replacement of laptop. The complainant has prayed for grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation against opposite party for the inconvenience and mental tension caused due to the defective product. On the facts of the case it is not a case to grant compensation for mental agony. The ends of justice will be met in ordering opposite party to replace the product with a brand new one in the place of defective laptop. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace with a brand new laptop in the place of defective laptop supplied to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 7. The opposite party should contact the complainant and comply the order to the satisfaction of the complainant and intimate this forum.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 13TH DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />