Tripura

West Tripura

CC/44/2017

Mr. Nabakumar Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP Inc. GF, Global e Business Ops Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  44   of   2017

Sri Nabakumar Das,
S/O- Narayan Ch. Das,
Kamalghat 
Opp. Of ICFI University Tripura Mohanpur,
Agartala, West Tripura.            ...….…...Complainant.

       VERSUS          

      1. HP Inc. 
GF, Global e Business Ops. Pvt. Ltd., No. 66/2,
Ward No. 83, Bagmane Tech-Park,
7th Floor- A Wing ''Embassy Prime'' CV Raman Nagar,
P.C. 560093, Bangalore, Karnataka,

      2. The Proprietor of HP Service Centre, Agartala,
Opp. Of Sarkar Nursing Home,
Agartala, West Tripura.

      3. The proprietor of IT solution,
1st Floor Swasti Bazar,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ..............Opposite Parties.
 

 __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : In person.
                      
For the O.P. No.1 & 2        : None appeared.

For the O.P. No.3            : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Smt. Madhumita Bhattacharya,
                      Smt. Manisha Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.
                
    
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 20.09.2017.

J U D G M E N T    
          This case arises on the petition filed by one Nabakumar Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The case of the petitioner in short is that purchased one Laptop on payment of Rs.36,000/- from the O.P. IT Solution. After 4 months of use it was disturbing. So, he called the service centre Agartala Branch. But the service engineer did not visit his house. Speaker was changed but sound system was disturbing. Service engineer then reported that there was disturb in hard disk. Then hard disk was also changed by the service centre. But this system was not working. Sound system was not O.K. On 25.03.17 he complained the HP, manufacturing company. They assured that service engineer will visit. But actually no service engineer visited. Again and again he sent mail to the company. But no action taken. Petitioner, therefore, filed this case for getting back the price of defective laptop and compensation of Rs.8 ,000/-. 

2.        O.P. No.3, proprietor of IT solution appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that O.P. provided all services as per the request of the petitioner. The laptop has carried warranty for 6 months warranty from the date of purchase. After 6 months if defect occurs due to physical damage company or service centre is not liable.

3.        O.P. No. 1 & 2 did not appear to contest the case proceed exparte against them. 

4.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the O.P. failed to provide proper service to the petitioner?
        (II) Whether the O.P. has deficiency of service?

5.        Petitioner produced the copy of cash memo, Email sent also given evidence in support of this this.

        O.P. No.3 produced the statement on affidavit of Partha Choudhury.
            Findings and decision;
6.        We have gone through all the evidence. O.P. No.3 stated that being seller he was ready to replace the computer if defects found in one month. In the written statement O.P. however, stated that warranty period is for 6 months. According to petitioner after 3 months noise in the laptop was detected. He made contact with the shop keeper IT solution. Then he went to service centre to change the speaker and service centre personal told that problem was in the hard disk. As per advice of the O.P. he made contact withed the HP care. Thereafter hard disk was changed. But the noise continued. He made contact with the service engineer of the service centre but they did not render any help. The proprietor of HP service centre did not appear in this case. Service centre engineer suggested for change of hard disk and accordingly Email sent to HP company at Bangalore. Thereafter hard disk was changed but the problem continued. In this case the service centre did not appear and claim of the petitioner not refuted. There is deficiency of service by the service centre. O.P. No.3 being seller supplied the warranty card and as per warranty the warranty will expire on July 18, 2017. Product was purchased on 02.08.16. So warranty was given for one year. But the seller stated that warranty was for 6 months and in the evidence it was stated that he was ready to replace it if it is produced before him within one month. This type of wrong information was given by him. This is unfair trade practice by the O.P. No.3. O.P. No.1 company did not appear. The defect in the laptop was admitted by the company and hard disk was sent. We consider that all the O.Ps were liable for this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. They are jointly and severally liable. We direct all the O.P. to replace the defective laptop which was disturbing just after 4 months of purchase within the warranty period and arrange the replacement by new one taking back the old and pay compensation to the petitioner Rs.3,000/-. Direction is to be followed within one month positively.  
        
 Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.