Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/411/2017

NITIN RAINA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP INC D&E - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                431/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      21-01-2016

 Date of Decision        06-03-2018

 

Nitin Raina,

S/O  Ravi Raina,

R/O 351 Gobind Nagar

Gole Gujral Revenue Complex,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                      Complainant

                                  V/S

 

1.HP Inc.D and E,2F Tower D and E,

Building No.2 DLF Cybergreen DLF

Cybercity,Phase III,Gurgaon Haryana-122002.

2.In Tarvo Technologies Ltd.47 C/C

First Floor Gandhi Nagar,Near Sachdeva New PT

College Jammu & Kashmir(Jammu)-180004.

3.Best Buy Computers Shop No.163-C,

Gole Market,Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                      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.

Complainant, in person, present.

Mr.Vikas Sharma,Advocate for OP1, present.

Nemo for OP2&3.

                                                           

ORDER

 

                     Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have purchased laptop HP,15-R014txs No on d447 Ingg, on,08-06-2015,for sale consideration of Rs.43,900/-.According to complainant, within warranty period, the laptop was marred by defects he approached the office/shop of OP,where he was directed to approach service centre, who refused to repair the computer on one pretext or the other. Allegation of complainant is that the Ops have neither removed the defect nor replaced the computer. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant served a legal notice, who have neither responded nor have taken any step to replace the defective computer,therefore,for failure to provide after sale service, according to complainant, amounts to deficiency in service, hence prays for either to refund an amount of Rs.43,900/-, alongwith interest or in the alternative replace the defective computer and  also prays for compensation.

                    On the other hand,P1has filed written version 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 f 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 customers 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 Ops are marked 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. The answering Op  does not provide any service/remedy available under the warranty fee of cost. The complaint in relation to the product occurs after the expiry of stipulated warranty period. Even if the fault occurs before the expiry period of warranty, the OP1 is not liable to provide any service to the customer, free of cost, if the customer communicates such fault to the Op after the expiry of the warranty period. In the case in hand, the subject laptop is provided with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and the same is within the warranty period.

          On the other hand,OP2&3 despite service of notice through registered covers with acknowledgment due, as well as, through Publication,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 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. Complainant has placed on record, copy of invoice copy of legal notice and cutting of newspaper.

                  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, laptop totally became defunct.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. Complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP1 was granted numerous opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version,however,L/C for OP1 stated at bar that the written version filed by OP1 may be treated as evidence, to this effect signature of L/C for OP1 has been taken on the margin of this order sheet, hence the right of OP1 to lead evidence closed.Therefore,version of OP1 went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, so much so, written version filed by Op1 is not supported by affidavit of OP1,therefore,same being bereft of  legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

                            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 also placed on record copy of invoice. It is to be noted that OP1 in the written version cum evidence affidavit has admitted that the subject laptop is provided with warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase and the same is within the warranty period.

                    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 refund Rs.43,900/-(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

 06-03-2018                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

 Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member     

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member.