CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.919/2008
MS NUPUR KASHYAP
D/O SH. ASHOK KASHYAP
204, NAVNITI APARTMENTS,
PATPARGANJ, DELHI-110092
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- HEWLETT PACKARD SERVICE CENTRE
BRANCH OFFICE:-
R.T. OUTSOURCING SERVICES LTD.,
A-200, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-I, MAIN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110020
- MEGA COMPUTERS
107-109, JAIPURIA PLAZA,
SECTOR-26, NOIDA, U.P.-201301 (NOW DELETED)
- HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA LTD.
6TH FLOOR, TOWER-D,
GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK,
M.G. ROAD, GURGAON-122001, HARYANA
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:18.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Initially the complaint was filed against OP-1 and OP-2. Subsequently the name of OP-2 was deleted and OP-3 was impleaded being the manufacturer of the product in question.
In brief the case of the complainant is that she purchased a laptop for personal use from OP-2 on 28.11.2007 and paid a sum of Rs.47,000/-. The light of the laptop started vanishing therefore complainant made a complaint to OP-1 on 26.8.2008 and it was informed by OP-1 that there is a defect in the motherboard. The laptop was returned to complainant on 30.8.08 after repair. The laptop again started malfunctioning hence complainant again made a complaint to OP-1 on 16.9.2008 and the laptop was returned to complainant on 22.9.08 after repair. On 06.10.08 the laptop stopped working hence the laptop was taken away by OP-1. On 15.10.2008 representative of OP-1 came to complainant to deliver the laptop and assured that motherboard has been replaced. On 24.10.2008 laptop again stopped working and the laptop was taken on 27.10.08 by OP-1. Complainant wrote a letter on 31.10.08 requesting OP to replace the laptop with new one or refund the cost of laptop alongwith interest and also pay Rs.25,000/- for mental agony suffered by complainant but till 05.12.2008 no satisfactory reply was received from OP-1. The said laptop was returned to complainant on 06.12.08 by representative of OP-1 stating that motherboard again has been replaced. The laptop is still not properly working.
It is further stated that complainant is working as a financial planner and due to casual attitude of the service centre, he has been prevented to make use of the laptop and is suffering losses. The representative of OP-1 made wrong statement that they have installed new motherboard. Thus OPs defrauded complainant and supplied defective good which is clear cut case of deficiency in service on their part. Since laptop was defective and as per the warranty OP-1 was asked to deliver a new laptop but they failed to do so. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund cost of laptop i.e. Rs.47,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation or to supply new laptop of the same model with one year extended warranty.
OP-1 in the reply took the plea that complainant approached OP-1 with “no display issue” in the laptop’ which was duly rectified by repairing the motherboard and the laptop was handed over to complainant to his satisfaction on 30.08.2008. Complainant again approached to OP-1 on 16.9.08 with no display and Wi-Fi issue in the laptop which was duly rectified by repairing the motherboard. Complainant checked the working of laptop and took the delivery on 22.9.08. On 06.10.2008 engineer of OP-1 collected the laptop from complainant and provided standby laptop and the said laptop was rectified by replacing motherboard and delivered the laptop in working condition to the satisfaction of complainant on 15.10.08. The engineer had delivered the laptop in working condition and never committed about its future working conditions. Complainant had registered a complaint on 24.10.2008 and engineer of OP-1 took the laptop for repair from the residence of complainant on the same day. On 27.10.2008 engineer of OP-1 approached to office of complainant and provided the standby laptop. This time matter was referred to the HP and complainant was offered the free warranty extension for the period of repair and a special discounted warranty extension care pack for two years and made calls for updating current status. On 06.12.08 engineer of OP-1 approached to office of complainant with repaired laptop and delivered the same in working condition. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
OP-3 in the reply took the preliminary objection that the laptop was purchased on 28.11.07 and OP-3 is giving warranty of one year on its electronic products and the warranty of this laptop expired on 01.10.08 as the product was out of warranty any defect arising to the laptop cannot be cured free of cost by OP-3. On merit it is denied that OPs ever assured complainant that they will take up her case either to replace with new one or rectify the defect completely by changing with the new motherboard. It is denied that OP-3 defrauded complainant and supplied defective goods. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 hence the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for complaint and OP-1 and carefully perused the record.
It is submitted by OP-1 that there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop had it been so the laptop would not have functioned for 9 months without any trouble. As and when defect developed in the laptop the defects were fully rectified and also the standby laptop was handed over to complainant whenever laptop was under repair. There is no deficiency on the part of OP-1. On the other hand it is submitted that complainant has herself admitted that she has suffered a loss due to casual attitude of service centre which shows that complainant is indulging in commercial activities hence she is not a consumer.
We do not find any force in the submission of OP-1. Complainant has specifically stated in para 1 of her complaint that she purchased the laptop for her personal use. Laptop was not purchased by any company and the same has been purchased by complainant for her personal use and simply because complainant stated in para 4 of her complaint that due to causal attitude of service centre, complainant has been prevented to make use of the laptop and suffered a loss does not mean that the laptop was purchased for commercial purposes. Laptop was not purchased by any firm or a company, the same has been purchased by an individual person for her personal use hence complainant is a consumer.
It is an admitted fact that for the first time complainant approached OP-1 on 26.08.2008 with no display issue in the said laptop and laptop was handed over to complainant on 30.08.2008 after repair of motherboard. However the contention of complainant is that OP-1 informed complainant that motherboard has been replaced. On 16.09.2008 laptop again developed problem of no display issue. OP-1 duly diagnosed the error and repaired the motherboard and handed over to complainant on 22.09.2008.
The laptop developed a problem and was taken away by representative of OP and a standby laptop was delivered on 27.10.2008. Contention of OP-1was that the matter was brought to the notice of manufacturer and complainant was offered free warranty extension for the period of repair and a special discounted warranty extension for two years. The laptop was handed over to complainant on 06.12.2008. Contention of complainant is that representative of OP informed that the motherboard has again been replaced. However the contention of OP is that the same was repaired.
It is clear that laptop first of all developed problem in July 2007 and the same was delivered to OP-1 on 26.08.2008 and it was handed over to complainant after doing the needful on 30.08.08. The laptop again developed problem on 16.09.2008. The laptop again developed problem on 06.10.2008 which was handed over to complainant after changing motherboard on 24.10.2008. Complainant again registered a complaint and laptop was handed over to complainant after repair on 06.12.2008. It really does not matter that from November 2007 till August 2008 the laptop has not developed any problem. The fact remains that during warranty period laptop developed serious problem in the span of two months and complainant brought the same to OP-1 number of times for problem in motherboard which is the main part of laptop. Simply by saying that every time laptop was repaired does not mean that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. A person approaching to service centre of manufacture of the laptop after every 10 or 15 days for serious problem of the laptop clearly shows that the same was defective. Nevertheless it developed serious defects during the warranty period and under these circumstances OP should have replaced the laptop. Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP-3.
Since OP-3 is manufacturer of the laptop, OP-3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,000/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP-3 is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
