CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.526/2009
SHRI AJAY K. SWAIN S/O SHRI G.B. SWAIN
R/O FLAT NO. 1067, VIKAS KUNJ,
VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI 110018 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- H.P COMPUTERS PVT. LTD. THOUGH
THE SERVICE HEAD,
H.P. SERVICE CENTRE,
A- 200, OKHLA PHASE- I
NEW DELHI 110020.…..OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
- M/S EUROTECH COMMUNICATION
G-1, ASHOK BHAVAN 93,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI ...OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Date of Institution-20.07.2009
Date of Order- 22.10.2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA – PRESIDENT
The present complaint has been filed inter-alia seeking refund of cost price of the laptop, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards harassment and loss in studies and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation for trauma and mental agony.
- The complainant is a student who purchased a laptop from OP 2 which was manufactured by OP 1. The laptop was purchased on 25.05.2007 for a total consideration of Rs. 37,067.30/-.
- It is stated within 6 months from the purchase of the subject laptop it developed several hardware problems including the problems of display etc. The complainant made several complaints about it but of no avail. The onsite warranty was suspended and the complainant had to carry the said laptop to the authorised service station.
- It is further stated that the subject laptop was submitted for repairs to the service station for six times on different dates. It is further stated that in the process of repairs, mother board and DVD drive was replaced four times and front panel, fan and adapter was replaced on one occasion. The original battery of the subject laptop was misplaced by OP 1 at their service station which was replaced by a second hand and used battery which drastically reduced the back-up time of the subject laptop.
- It is thus stated that parts used in the manufacturing of the subject laptop were of inferior quality and the replacements were defective and sub-standard.
- A legal notice dated 06.05.2009 was served upon the OPs on behalf of the complainant which notice was duly served upon the OPs. The complainant received a letter dated 13.06.2009 on behalf of OPs which informed that the subject laptop is repaired and can be collected subject to payment of Rs. 500/-.
- OP 1 filed its Written Statement wherein it is stated there is no deficiency in service on behalf of OP 1. Their duty was to repair the subject laptop, which was done. OP 1 is under no obligation to replace the subject laptop.
- It is further stated that they are still willing to repair the subject laptop. It is further stated that complainant was using the subject laptop negligently which was the cause of problems faced by it.
- In reply to the pertinent allegation of the complainant about number of times parts needed to be replaced, a vague reply has been given wherein it is stated it received numerous complaints regarding subject laptop but has maintained silence about the number of times parts were replaced.
- It is further stated that a laptop has many severable parts which have independent functioning thus defects in some of the independent parts like adaptor, DVD drive, mother board and front panel cannot be the reason for demand for a new laptop.
The parties have filed affidavit by way of evidence reiterating their versions made in their respective pleadings and written submissions.
Vide order dated 03.06.2022, a query was put by this Commission about the whereabouts of the subject laptop. OP 1 has filed exchange of emails between the counsels wherein it is stated that since the matter is old, OP 1 is unable to retrieve the details of its whereabouts. This establishes that the subject laptop still continues to be in the possession of OP 1.
The submission of the OP 1 that their duty is only to repair, which they have done, therefore there is no deficiency in service, is not persuasive. A consumer when buys a product expects it to serve well without making unnecessary visits to the service centre. A manufacturer is expected to produce products which will serve the consumer well for reasonable times. Repair should be an exception and not a rule.
This Commission is of the view that complaints requiring replacement of mother board and DVD drive four times and replacement of fan, front panel and adaptor on one occasion within the period of warranty/extended warranty is a serious lapse on the part of OP 1. It indicates manufacturing defects in the subject laptop and inferior quality of spare parts. No doubt that complainant has not filed any documents to substantiate numerous replacement of above stated parts and on several occasions however this Commission is not oblivious to the fact that OP 1 has not specifically denied the averments and elected to give an vague reply to these averments. It is trite in law that omissions to specifically deny averments made in the complaint amount to deemed admissions. Mother board is the soul of any laptop and requiring it to be replaced on four occasions categorically leads to the conclusion that the product is defective. Besides, the OP 1 has retained the subject laptop and was unable to locate its whereabouts.
This Commission, for the reasons above stated, holds that the subject laptop suffered from manufacturing defects and OP 1 is deficient in performance of its duties towards the complainant. Therefore, this Commission grants refund of Rs.37,067/- being the cost of subject laptop. This Commission further grants compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards the harassment faced by the complainant. This is to be paid by OP1.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Order be uploaded on the website.
