BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Bharat Gakhar son of Gulshan Gakhar resident of House No.130, Kewal House, Vijaynagar, Bhiwani, Haryana through his GPA Holder Sh. Rahul Singla son of Sh. Ramesh Lal resident of House No.3087, Sector 27D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant….

                                V E R S U S

1]     H &H. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hardware and Software Solutions, SCO 198, 200, IIIrd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.]    M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi Hosur Road, Banglore- 560030      

                                        ……Opposite Party(s)……..

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

                        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for Complainant.

                Sh. Ashu Batta, Director of OP No.1 with counsel Sh.                                  Nikhil Batta.

                Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Adv. for OP No.2

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER 

               Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Laptop make HP Model 6715b AMD  having Sr. No. 19624 MFG CU7351JX9 product No.RK154AV for a sum of Rs.36,300/- from the OP No.1 (Annexure C-2). The warranty of the Laptop was three years (Annexure C-3).   The assertion of the complainant is that the Laptop did not work properly after its purchase as its battery backup was not there and the charger was also faulty. On the advise of OP No.1, the complainant visited service centre at Sector 34, Chandigarh and they retained the laptop with them against job card No. W-675 and replaced the charger and battery of the laptop after several visits.  After a span of five months, the said Laptop again started giving problem, as the processor used to heat up and battery was not working properly. On approaching the Service Centre again, they told that the Laptop is out of warranty and asked the complainant to approach the OP No.1 &2 as the warranty of Laptop has not been updated on their system. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs many times for rectification of the defect of the Laptop but the OPs could not do anything except to retain the laptop every-time with them and return to the complainant without removing the defect. Even after replacing the motherboard and keyboard the laptop could not work.   On March, 2010 the display of the Laptop got faulty and on approaching the OPs, the complainant was told that LCD does not come under the warranty of HP. Again on 10.4.2010, due to non function of the laptop in question, the same was deposited with the OPs against job sheet No. 8532 (Annexure C-4.). In the end, the Complainant called the customer care numbers of HP but to no effect. Then a legal notice was served upon the OPs  to which  they did not respond.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

2.                 The OP No.1 in its reply pleaded that the complainant is misleading the Forum as he had bought two laptops having invoice Nos. 9304 dated 19.9.2007 and 9697 dated 12.11.2007 (R-1/1 & R-1/2) respectively and concealed this fact and tried to club complaints of both the laptops. The OP further contended that the Laptop in question was Ok and in working condition. Only adaptor of the Laptop was replaced against receipt No. 7876 dated 6.4.2009 (R-1/3). There was no problem with the battery.    The OP No.1 vehemently denied that it had ever asked the complainant to visit service centre. Further it has been contended that the complainant approached for service on 9.10.2009 after half a year from the date of purchase, obviously during this period, the Laptop was working properly.  It has been submitted that the Laptop was in working condition except a huge amount of dust on the Laptop due to which the processor was getting heated. Also the slight display problem was found, which was due to mishandling, and it was not covered under warranty.  The complainant was duly advised to handle the Laptop carefully.   On 10.4.2010 again, the dust was removed, no other part was replaced. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP-1 pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 3.             The OP No.2 in its reply submitted that it has no control over the business of the retailers as there is no privity of contract between them. It only supplies its product for sale to the retailers.  The OP No.2 further denied of having any knowledge regarding purchase of HP Laptop Model 6715b AMD from OP No.1. It has been categorically denied that the Laptop was carrying three years warranty. However the warranty was of one year from the date of purchase. The OP No.2 admitted that the adaptor and battery was replaced. The OP No.2 pleaded that it is a customer friendly company and promptly redresses any genuine complaint from the customers. It has been denied that the motherboard and keyboard was ever replaced. The complainant was given proper service during the warranty of the product and after lapse of warranty, the complainant was informed that any kind of service would carry charges as per terms and conditions.  The OP No.2 submitted that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.      The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

5.      We have heard the Learned Counsel parties and have also perused the record.

6.      The main contention of the complainant is that the Laptop was purchased from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.36,300/-  make HP Model 6715b AMD having three years warranty from the retailer (OP No.1) (Annexure C-3), which was not working properly immediately after its purchase in spite of numerous visits to make the Laptop trouble free to the OPs as well as their service centre. But the defect could not be removed. The OP No.2 in its reply has stated that the said Laptop has only one year warranty instead of three years. In case, the retailer (OP No.1) has given warranty of more than one year i.e. 3 years, it is between the customer and the OP No.1.  The OP No.2 exercise no control over the business of retailers hence having no role in the matter.

7.      In view of the foregoing  discussion and evidence placed on file, it is observed that there is certainly some problem with the Laptop in question. Neither OP No.1 nor  the OP No.2 have denied the statement of the complainant that he has visited them many times with the problem of Laptop. There is also no dispute regarding warranty of three years as the same is apparent from the invoice and warranty card issued by OP No.1 (Annexure C-2 &3). Even reply of the OPs are contradictory, as OP No.1 has took the plea that only adaptor was replaced and battery was perfectly Ok and on the other hand, OP NO.2 categorically admitted that both battery and adaptor were replaced. This stand of the OPs clearly show that there is something hanky-panky in the matter and the OPs are deficient in service. Thus the complainant has to go through immense mental and physical agony without fault of his. Moreso, the OPs have failed to prove their case through cogent evidence that there is no defect in the Laptop.  Even during the course of arguments OP No.1 has accepted the fact of giving three years warranty to the complainant at his own.

8.             In view of the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there is merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly allowed.  We consider that it is the liability of the OP No.1 to replace the defective Laptop with a new one having same model and configuration as the three years warranty of the Laptop was given by OP No.1 at its own. Therefore, we direct the OP No1 to replace the Laptop with new one accordingly, and further to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- towards harassment and a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18%, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

9.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.