Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/275/2017

DANISH TICKOO - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEWLETT PACKERED - Opp.Party(s)

BK BHATT

19 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No                370/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      10-12-2015

 Date of Decision      :   16-05-2018

 

Danish Ticku,

S/O Sh.Pawan Ticku,

R/O House No.49/Lane 2A

Roop Nagar Enclave,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                            Complainant

                          V/S

1.M/S Hewlet Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.

14/30 Okhla Industrial Area Phase-III,

New Delhi.

2.M/S Best Buy Computers,Shop No.163 –C

Gole Market,Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.-04.

3.M/S Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt.Ltd.

Hussain Villa 19 Lajpat Kunj,Napier Town,

Jabalpur-482001.

                                                                                                                                                              Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                       Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member.

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.B.K.Bhat,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Vikas Sharma,Advocate for OP1,present.

Nemo for OPs 2&3.

                                                                  ORDER

 

                     Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant said to have purchased HP PAVILION 15-Ro14TX(Laptop) with S.No.Cnd4312fve and carry case notebook from OP2 ,on,17-12-2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.42,600/-(copy of bill Annexure-C/1). According to complainant he had purchased the said laptop for his personal use as he is an engineering student and perusing it in the Engineering College at Jabalpur.Allegation of complainant is that within four months from its purchase, the laptop was marred by defects, he immediately came from Jabalpur to Jammu and approached OP2 and apprised them about the improper functioning of said laptop,who in turn advised him to visit Service Station Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.That the experts from the service station apprised him that there is some problem in the laptop and will be removed and advised him to purchase software CDF’s from Hewlet Packard which he had purchased the same on lien for Rs.600/-and the service centre of OP1 at Gandhi Nagar returned the laptop to him and advised him to load the software himself or through OP2.Complainant further submitted that he left to Jabalpur for pursuing his engineering course and when he started using the laptop he found the problem still persisted and complainant immediately went to service station at Jabalpur i.e.OP3 and handedover the said laptop to them on,29-09-2015 and OP3 assured him that the problem would be sorted out within few days(Annexure C2).Allegation of complainant is that OP3 instead of repairing the said laptop intimated him that there is some grave problem in the motherboard in addition to some other problems which they will rectify in couple of days,but till date OP3 did not return the laptop to him, despite several request. Submission of complainant is that failure of Ops to provide after sale service, constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,complainant seeks direction to Ops for either replacement of laptop or refund of cost of laptop to the tune of Rs.42,600/- In addition, complainant also prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

                    On the other hand,OP1 has filed written version/evidence and went on to total denial to the allegations of complainant.OP1 has took the stand that complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the laptop in question nor any deficiency in service or un fair trade practice. The OP1 further submitted that the laptop purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, the consumers are using the product and the complainant had purchased the laptop after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance. In this regard, it is important to state that all the products manufactured by answering OP are marketed only after the prototype of the same is being approved by the appropriate authority. All the products manufactured by OP are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the country quality department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. The OP1 further submitted that the warranty benefits provided by the Op on the said laptop are for a defined period .The warranty is explicit and the terms and conditions of such limited warranty state in unequivocal terms that the warranty coverage extends all the product is depleted or the warranty ends date has been reached. In the case on hand,the subject laptop had base warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase as on date the laptop is out of the warranty period.That on verification of the data base maintained by the answering OP  company based on the serial number of the laptop for the calls/complaints lodged to the Customer Care Centre of OP,it is known that the complainant had reported issues in respect of the laptop to the customer care centre/authorized service centre during different time intervals, that on receipt of the complaint, the service team of answering OP had diagnosed the laptop, resolved the issues reported by carrying out repair and replacing the required parts as per terms of the warranty, post repair kept the laptop under observation and on confirmation that the laptop is working fine as per specifications had delivered the laptop to the complainant. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is prima facie unsustainable and therefore question of granting any relief whatsoever to the complainant do not arise.

          On the other hand,OP2&3 despite service of notice through registered covers with acknowledgment due,but,OPs 2&3 did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act,therefore the right of OPs2&3 stands closed vide order dated 10-02-2016 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

                         Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Ticku. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice and copy of service call reprot.

                  We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for parties at length.

                       L/C appearing for complainant would submit that despite complainant approaching Ops time and again for removal of alleged defects, erupted in the laptop, but Ops failed to remove the defects, resultantly, OP3 did not return the laptop to complainant despite repeated requests to OP3 and customer care of OP1.L/C for complainant would further submit that Ops are duty bound to provide after sale service and failure on their part to provide proper service, amounts to deficiency in service.

                        In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Ticku. Complainant and his witness  have reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, ,L/C for OP1 stated at bar that the written version filed by OP1 may be treated as evidence, hence the right of OP1 to lead evidence closed.

                            It is settled preposition of law that if goods purchased are proved to be defective and are not capable of repair, in that event, manufacturer and service provider are duty bound either to remove the defect or to pay the cost to the customer. In the case on hand, although complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Ticku and also placed on record copy of invoice and Service Call Report. It is to be noted that as per retail invoice the date of purchase of laptop is 17-12-2014 and as per Service Call Report complainant has approached service centre on,29-09-2015 and service type is marked as Warranty.So from the documentary evidenced placed on record by complainant it is manifestly cleared from the retail invoice and service call report that the laptop is within warranty period and the OPs are duty bound to provide after sale service.

                          After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumers as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OPs are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumers. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                          Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to either replace the laptop or refund Rs.42,600/-(i.e.cost of laptop)to the complainant.Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The Ops shall comply the order jointly and severally, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                         Khalil Choudhary

                                                                    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                          President

Announced                                               District Consumer Forum

 16-05-2018                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

       

 Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member     

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member.