Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/278/2017

SAHIL CHARGOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEWLETT PACKERED - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL VERMA

13 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

 Case File  No.                 341/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution      26-11-2016

 Date of Decision         12-09-2018

 

Sahil Chargotra,

S/O Om Parkash,

R/O Bhalwal,P.S.Gharota,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

1.Hewlet Packard Global  Soft  Pvt.Ltd.

  EC2 Computer HP Avenue,Survey 39,

 (Part)Electronic City,Phase II Hosur Road,

 Banglore-560100.

2.Aforeserver Limited 651/A Gandhi Nagar,

  Near Dudhadari Mandir,Jammu

  (Authorised Service Centre for HP Products).

3. Best Buy Computers,Shop No.1,63 –C

Gole Market,Gandhi Nagar,Jammu,

 Through its Proprietor.

                                                                                                                                     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.Rakesh Abrol,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs .

                                                             ORDER.

 

                     Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant said to have purchased HP laptop on,30-12-2014 under invoice No.BBC/14-15/3405, from OP3,for sale consideration of Rs.29,000/-.According to complainant, laptop would carry warranty for one year,however,laptop was marred by defects within two months, after its purchase, the said laptop started showing technical problems, as such he approached office of OP2 being the authorized service centre in Jammu. Further allegation of complainant is that on,10-02-2015 the said laptop returned to him with an assurance that there would be no problem in future as all the problems stands rectified with necessary repairs, but the laptop started showing more problems with no sign of charging battery and fault in the display, complainant again approached office of OP for carrying out necessary repair,however,on,14-04-2015 he had been told that the defects/problems identified by him had been repaired and there will be no problem in future with full assurance. Complainant further submitted that after a lapse of more than two months, again new kind of problem started in the laptop for which he had been constrained to approach office of OP2 on,10-07-2015 and requested the OP 1&2 to kindly rectify all the problems  once for all that has cropped up in the laptop so that he may not suffer without any fault on his part. That as a consequence OP2 issued a communication that the laptop Model No.HP 250 G3 Notebook PC Serial No.CND4258mx3 )is lying with OP as repaired with a request to collect the same failing which OP will charge demurrage charges of Rs.500 to recover the cost of maintaining the said Laptop.Further,if not collected within 15 days the product shall be sent to Delhi. Complainant further submitted that  he had visited the authorized service centre on numerous occasions,however the laptop was returned to him with an assurance that there will be no problem in future. That in the month of July,2016 complainant had visited the service centre to receive the said laptop after repair,but to his utter dismay and surprise the laptop got physically damaged and the said laptop returned to him in a shattered condition. Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served a legal notice,however,on,19-05-2016 the Ops have admitted the breakage and opted to replace three parts,which was utterly refused by the complainant, as he had deposited a new laptop with only technical defects. According to complainant,Ops sold  defective laptop, which caused enormous inconvenience and mental agony to complainant and same constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,complainant prays for refund of Rs.29,000/-,i.e. cost of laptop and in addition, prays for sum of Rs.1,30,000/-under different heads.

                        Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due, but they 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, so their right to file w/v stands closed by this Forum and complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

               Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Surjeet Kumar and Raman Chargotra,respectively.Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice, copies of service call reports, copy of legal notice, copy of reply and photographs of damaged laptop.

            We have perused record and heard complainant and L/C for Ops.

                 Specific allegation of complainant is that he  said to have purchased HP laptop on,30-12-2014 under invoice No.BBC/14-15/3405, from OP3,for sale consideration of Rs.29,000/-and the laptop would carry warranty for one year,however,laptop was marred by defects within two months, after its purchase and the said laptop started showing technical problems, as such he approached office of OP2 being the authorized service centre in Jammu. Further allegation of complainant is that on,10-02-2015 the said laptop returned to him with an assurance that there would be no problem in future as all the problems stands rectified with necessary repairs, but the laptop started showing more problems with no sign of charging battery and fault in the display, complainant again approached office of OP for carrying out necessary repair,however,on,14-04-2015 he had been told that the defects/problems identified by him had been repaired and there will be no problem in future with full assurance. Complainant further submitted that after a lapse of more than two months, again new kind of problem started in the laptop for which he had been constrained to approach office of OP2 on,10-07-2015 and requested the OP 1&2 to kindly rectify all the problems  once for all that has cropped up in the laptop so that he may not suffer without any fault on his part. That as a consequence OP2 issued a commun ication that the laptop Model No.HP 250 G3 Notebook PC Serial No.CND4258mx3 )is lying with OP as “repaired “with a request to collect the same failing which OP will charge demurrage charges of Rs.500 to recover the cost of maintaining the said Laptop.Further,if not collected within 15 days the product shall be sent to Delhi. Complainant further submitted that  he had visited the authorized service centre on numerous occasions,however the laptop was returned to him with an assurance that there will be no problem in future. That in the month of July,2016 complainant had visited the service centre to receive the said laptop after repair,but to his utter dismay and surprise the laptop got physically damaged and the said laptop returned to him in a shattered condition. Constrained by the act of OPs complainant served a legal notice,however,on,19-05-2016 the Ops have admitted the breakage and opted to replace three parts,which was utterly refused by the complainant, as he had deposited a new laptop with only technical defects. According to complainant,Ops sold  defective laptop, which caused enormous inconvenience and mental agony to complainant and same constitutes deficiency in service.

                          The complainant in his own affidavit and  affidavits of Surjeet Kumar and Raman Chargotra have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavits of Surjeet Kumar and Raman Chargotra,so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint.

                     This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Surjeet Kumar and Raman Chargotra, which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavits of complainant and documents placed on record, therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to refund the cost of laptop to the tune of Rs.29,000/- to the complainant, who shall return the defective laptop alongwith accessories to Ops. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5 000/- respectively. The Ops  shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. 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

    12-09-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                                

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member