…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sunil Kumar Newar, complainant in person.
Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 13.07.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that he purchased a HP Pavilion Gaming 15-dk0272tx Laptop from Croma Store, Faridabad on 25.12.2020 at a cost of Rs.71,089/- for his daughter. In the laptop scrolling were appearing when the camera was turned on. The same was reported to Hewlett Packard (Hp). After multiple visits form unskilled engineers his laptop got physically damaged, the initial problem of scrolling lines still exit and now the quality of image had also degraded. In the first visit, the service engineer himself had admitted that the problem exists and he will talk to technical team. Thereafter four visits were performed by service engineer between three to four months and each visit resulted in one or more damages. On the basis of the reports of the unskilled engineers, their customer Relation Manager (sh. Ashutosh Mishra) informed via email dated 23.11.2021 that the web camera was working as per camera specs and regarding the two damages concerned, we would repair it at free of cost form HP. Now their Customer Relation Manager was saying that it was a sper the specs then why did their engineer opened the laptop. They should have said it in the beginning itself that the camera was as per specs, so that at least his laptop would not have damaged. Secondly HP was ready to repair the damages free of cost which implies how skilled the engineers wee. Further, in getting the spare parts HP took four to five weeks and now they were insisting the customer to get the damages crated by their service engineer in two days and the initial problem for which the complaint was made could not be sorted out. In the laptop scrolling were appearing when the camera was turned on but multiple visits of TVS Unskilled Service Engineers (Service partners of HP), lead to more issues than resolution of original issue. After replacing the camera multiple times, the quality of image had totally deteriorated. Flickering had started alongwith scrolling lines apart from the hardware damages. Five visits had taken place by their unskilled engineers in a period of three to four months resulting in damage of laptop. The initial problem for which the complaint was raised still exist. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party for replacement of his laptop.
2. The case was fixed for filing POA and reply on behalf of opposite party. Reply on behalf of opposite party not filed. Learned proxy counsel Shri Hari Ram appeared on behalf of Shri Kunal Kant Sharma counsel for opposite party and requested for exparte of opposite party Heard. Allowed. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.07.2022.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4 We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Hewlett Packard with the prayer to the opposite party for replacement of his laptop.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sunil Kumar Newar,
Ex.C1 – invoice,, Ex.C2 - email, Ex.C3 -Service Call Report,, Ex,C-4 & 5 – emails, Ex.C-6 – service call report, Ex.C-7 – photograph of laptop, Ex.C-8 – Grievance details, Ex.C-9 – Service call report, Ex.C-10 & 11 – emails.
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
7. Opposite party is directed to replace the laptop in question with the same model and same price to the complainant. There are no order as to costs. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old laptop in question to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 10.8.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
