Date of Filing: 14.09.2021 Date of Disposal: 29.06.2022.
Complainant : Soumo Dey, S/o Late SupriyaDey, the Proprietor of S.D. ENTERPRISE,
Resident of A/7, 5th Floor, Satya Apartment, Depo Para P.O. South Dhadka, P.S. Asansol (N), Dist. PaschimBardhaman, Pin – 713302.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party :1. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Director
Head Off ice at EC2 Campus, HP Avenue, Surve6y No. 39, (PART),
Electronic City PhaseII, Hosur Road, Bangalore, Pin -560100.
2. Pinnacle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,represented by its Managing Director, City Centre, Durgapur, P.S. DurgapurDist. PaschimBardhaman,
Pin – 713216.
3. Appario Retail Private Ltd., represented by its Managing Director,
Plot No. 44, Arrjavv Industrial & Warehouse Park, Dankuni, near
Coal India Complex, Hooghly, Pin- 712310.
4. Mr. Sandip Kumar Shaw, S/o Late K.P. Shaw, the technician of
Pinnacle Infotech Pvt. Ltd., resident of NetajiSatabdi Nagar,
Homeopathy College, Ismmile, P.S. Hirapur, Dist. PaschimBardhaman,
Pin- 713304.
Present : Mohammad Muizzuddeen - Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. LipikaGhosh - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Debdas Rudra - Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party : None.
EX PARTE FINAL ORDER
ORDER NO: 12 DATED-29.06.2022.
Today is fixed for passing order Ex parte.
The complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate. The record is taken up for passing order.
On 14.09.2021 the complainant has lodged this case u/S 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 against the OPs.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is the proprietor of the S.D. Enterprises having its office at Satya Apartment, Depo Para, Asansol, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman and he purchased a Laptop manufactured by HP Company being Model No. HP Pavilion x 360 Touch Screen 2 in 1 Full HD 14” Laptop, SL No. 8CG0397JLB on online through Amazon from OP No.3 for his personal use. The invoice No. is IN-SCCF-532876 and invoice details – W.B. – SCCF-1034-2021 dt 08.11.2020 valued at Rs. 51,490/- which was delivered on 18.08.2021. But he noticed that there was some white spot visible on the display of the said Laptop and he lodged a complaint before the OP No.1 through helpline call on 19.08.2021, which was registered as Complaint Case No.5071039313. The OP No.1 then told him to send the photo shot of the defective display of the Laptop and accordingly he sent it through mail. On 22.08.2021 he received a phone call from OP No.1 with an information that the part of the Laptop was not replaced in warranty period as because the display of the Laptop has been injured with some sharp object for the reason of which white spot was visible on the display. Then the complainant was very much surprised that how OP No.1 without any physical inspection of the Laptop in question gave such information. To such type of activity of the OP No.1 indicates negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on his part.
The complainant again requested the OP No.1 for several times over phone to send technician for physical inspection of the Laptop but he denied to send the technician and if the OP sends any technician then he would have to pay Rs.1350/- for visiting charge. According to the norms of the Company he was under obligation to remove the said defects or to replace the parts of the Laptop if it is found within the warranty period. In spite of it the Company deliberately denied to remove the defects of the Laptop. He further stated that if the Laptop was injured by some sharp object or some other way from external, then there must be some scratches and damage visible on the said Laptop. But there were no such damages and scratches on the said Laptop.
The complainant again lodged a complaint dt 23.08.2021 before Consumer Helpline No. and the OP No.1 again asked to send the photo shots and again he sent the photo shots in their mail.
On 26.08.2021 they told the complainant that they would send one technician for physical inspection. On 31.08.2021 one technician of the OP No.2 who is authorized Servicing Centre of the OP No.1 i.e. OP No.4 came to the complainant for physical inspection of the Laptop. Who after inspection of the Laptop told that the display panel of the Laptop would be replaced within warranty coverage and he had also placed an order in front of the complainant for the same.
On 01.09.2021, the OP No.4 again asked to send some photo shots on his mobile Whatsapp No. being No. 8145158267 and the complainant comply with the same. But on 03.09.2021 the OP No.4 told him through phone that the display was not be replaced in warranty coverage on same excuse as stated earlier. Thereafter he received a mail from OP No.2 stating that his complaint was rejected on the same ground which was completely false, baseless and beyond the provision of law. Under the above facts and circumstances the complainant has been facing huge problems due to non-use of the said Laptop and finding no other alternative he was bound to lodge this case before the Ld. Commission.
Upon this background he prayed for passing necessary order either replacing a new Laptop in place of defective one or to refund the cost of the Laptop amounting to Rs.51490/- along with interest as the said defect was detected within warranty period. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.
The OP No.1 appeared through one Ld. Advocate Sayanton Som but did not file any Vokalatnama and W/V. And though the notices were served upon OP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 they did not appear to contest the case. Accordingly, the case was fixed for ex parte hearing against the OPs.
Decision with reasons:
In order to prove the case the complainant himself filed evidence-on-affidavit, and at the time of filing this case he filed the Xerox copies of documents including photo shots. It appears from the Tax invoice/bill of supplied cash memo issued by Amazon.in, it appears that the Laptop in question was purchased at Rs. 51,490/- from OP No.3 through Amazon.in (On line) and from the Xerox copies of the detailed address of H.P. Office in India i.e. OP No.1 it is found that OP No.1 dealing with this Laptop as manufacturer with the OP No.3.
Therefore on consideration of the above evidence regarding the defect of the Laptop in question, it may be said that it was the manufacturing defect as it appears from the evidence adduced by the complainant. The unchallenged evidence of the complainant cannot be disbelieved at all.
Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case to the hilt and it has also been proved that the OP Nos. 1 & 3 committed deficiency in service. The harassment and mental agony to the complainant has also been proved. As a result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that this case be and same is allowed ex parte against all the OPs, but without any cost. The OP Nos. 1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for their deficiency in service. The OP Nos. 1 & 3 are directed jointly and severally to replace the Laptop in question by a new Laptop or to refund the cost of the Laptop amounting to Rs. 51,490/- and they are also to pay severally and jointly Rs. 20,000/- as compensation towards mental pain and agony and harassment to the complainant as well as Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
They are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt this order failing which the amount shall carry further interest at the rate of 8% p.a. till realization.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C ,PurbaBardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C ,PurbaBardhaman. D.C.D.R.C , PurbaBardhaman.
