BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complt. Case No :1254 of 2009 Date of Institution: 01.09.2009 Date of Decision : 19.05.2010 Vivek Parmar s/o Sh.Romesh Chander Parmar, Resident of H.No.281, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. ……Complainant V E R S U S 1] Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., The Great Estern Plaza Office No.2, First Floor 1996 A, Airport Road, Pune – 411 006 2] Jain Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., 207 Ganapati Arcade Complex, Gurduwara Road Gurgaon BO. 654/16 above Calcutta Saree Center, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3] RT Outsourcing Services Limited, NM-4 & 5, Gagandeep, Old DLF, Sector 14, Gurgaon-1. 4] Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.58, 2nd Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh- 160 020 .…..Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant. Sh.Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for the OPs No.1 to 4. OPs No.2 & 3 already exparte. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER The instant case is a complaint filed by a student of M.B.A. Sh.Vivek Parmar – Complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to give him a new Laptop or refund its price as well as pay compensation for mental agony, harassment and humiliation. The case made out by the complainant is as follows:- 1] The complainant has purchased a Laptop from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.59,000/- as per bill as Ann.C-1. The Laptop carried a warranty of one year. Unfortunately, this laptop started giving trouble right from the very beginning. Being a student, the complainant needed the laptop for his education wherein he could do his homework, submit assignments, give presentations and also continuously connect with the college campus network. Unfortunately, the Wi-Fi connector of the laptop was not working properly from the first day. The laptop was thus taken to OP No.1 for repairs. Since the mother board was found faulty, the laptop was taken to OP No.3 for repair. Subsequently, the laptop was taken to OPs for repair many times. The mother board has been changed twice, but the laptop still does not boot-up and shows a blank screen. Even though the complainant has tried to get these faults in his laptop repaired from the OPs many times but the laptop is continuing to give problems. On expiry of one year warranty, the OPs have even requested the complainant to purchase a 3 year’s extended warranty for the laptop. Harassed and fed-up, the complainant has filed the present complaint, praying that the OPs be directed to replace the defective laptop with a new one or refund the amount spent on the laptop along with compensation. 2] Notices were sent to the OPs. OP No.1, 3 & 4 were duly served. They have filed their replies. OP No.2 after putting in one appearance never came on the subsequent dates, hence OP No.2 was proceeded exparte on 18.1.2010. 3] OPs No.1 & 4 in their reply have submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are baseless and not maintainable in law. They also state that they are the manufacturers of Personal Computers, Laptop etc. and supply these products in the market for sale to wholesale dealers who further sell them through retailers. They are not aware whether the complainant has purchased the laptop of their company from OP No.2 and in case he has made this purchase and has any genuine complaint against the company, he may address it to their complaint redressal department at the 24 hours toll free number. They have further submitted that whenever the complainant has gone to their Customer Care Centre, they have settled the issues by replacing the required parts to the satisfaction of the complainant, hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4] OP No.3 in their reply by way of affidavit has admitted that they are authorized service centre of OP No.1 and that Wi-Fi connectivity is an important feature in the laptop. It is also admitted that minor problems had arisen in the laptop of the complainant and the same were repaired by them within the shortest possible time. They had even replaced the mother board of the laptop. It is pertinent to mention here that since the warranty of the laptop was expiring on 5.4.2008, the OP No.3 as a responsible service provider had agreed to repair the laptop free of charge even after expiry of warranty and they had always kept the complainant updated about the status of his laptop. The complainant had collected the laptop after checking its working to his satisfaction on 10.1.2009. The complainant has never contacted them after this for any problem. They have submitted that they have always been sincere service provider and never lacked in providing services to their customers including the complainant. 5] Since, there seemed to be chances of compromise, the case was put up before the Lok Adalat on 26.3.2010 and again on 20.4.2010. However, since no satisfactory settlement or compromise could be arrived at between the parties, the case was referred back to the main stream on 20.4.2010. 6] We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions. 7] The complainant is a student, who has purchased the laptop to facilitate his studies. But the complainant is by now so fed-up with the continuous problems in the laptop that he does not want to settle for any repairs or false promises. The OPs have argued that they have always provided the relevant necessary services to the complainant whenever he has brought the laptop to them for repairs, hence he cannot allege deficiency in service against them. 8] Looking at the complete facts stated above, we can definitely conclude that the laptop in question is defective and seems to need continuous repairs. It is not to the satisfaction of the purchaser/complainant. Since, the laptop is being repaired time and again, it is evident that there is some serious and inherent defect in the laptop, which despite so many efforts does not seem to be rectified. In these circumstances, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the OPs jointly and severally to comply with the following directions:- i) To pay Rs.59,000/- to the complainant being the sale price of the laptop. ii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental harassment and for having wasted so much time in going to them again and again for repairing the laptop. iii) To pay the complainant Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall jointly and severally pay the entire aforesaid amount of Rs.69,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization besides the cost of litigation. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 19.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER ‘Om’
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1254 OF 2009 | | PRESENT: None. Dated the 19th day of May, 2010 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Madhu Mutneja) | (Lakshman Sharma) | | Member | President | |
| MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | |