Delhi

East Delhi

CC/860/2014

VISHWAS SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HP INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          860 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  15/09/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 06/01/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          07/01/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Vishwas Sharma, adult   

s/o- Sh S P Sharma

R/o  H 26, Gali no . 8,

Old Govind pura Extn. Delhi 110051……………….……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s H P India Ltd.    

2^nd Floor, Tower A, Building No. 10,

DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002

 

2- M/s E Zone, Future Retail Ltd.       

EDM Mall, Plot no. 01,  

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP 201010

 

Complainant Advocate……………………….……….Sharma & Asso. 

Opponent 1 Advocate………………………………….Sindhu T R & Asso.  

Opponent 2………………………………………………… Ashish Singh –AR & Sudhir Makkar Advo.     

 

Quorum                                                                  Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                                 Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased a HP Laptop model 6000006675 HP15–N203TX having its sn. 5CD3475P25 from OP2 for a sum of RS 42,740.95 vide invoice no.  90746779 marked here as CW1/1 on dated 01/06/2014.  

The said laptop developed switch on and taking long time to start problem from very first day and was unable to connect internet wire /WiFi was also confirmed from local internet provider. He stated that other laptops were normally functioning from the same internet modem. So, complainant contacted OP2 who told to contact OP1. Thereafter, he Emailed to OP1 on dated 03/08/2014 marked as CW1/2 and OP1 replied after getting their service engineer report who also could not rectify the problem vide service report CW1/3.

Complainant gave number of emails complaints to OP1, but did not get any satisfactory reply. It had been stated that the complainant had suffered business loss as the said laptop was not working well.  Felt cheated by OP1, sent a legal notice to both OPs on dated 18/08/2014. Hence this complaint was filed for refund of amount of Laptop Rs 42,740.95 with compensation of Rs one Lac and RS 20,000/- as cyber café payment for business work and Rs 20,000/- litigation cost.  

Notices were served. OP 1 submitted written statement through Legal Counsel Sh Aijaz Rasool denied all the allegations put in complaint as there was no deficiency in the services of OP1. It was stated that the complainant contacted on 02/08/2014 which was attended on 06/08/2014 and WiFi modem was not working, so was advised for replacement.  But complainant refused to do so and insisted for replacement with new laptop. The service engineer revisited on 16/08/2014 for replacing the WiFi modem, but again complainant refused.

OP 1 also sent email requesting complainant to cooperate with OP1 so that problem could be resolved. Before that complainant sent a legal notice dated 18/08/2014 and later filed this complaint. It was stated that complainant was sending emails repeatedly and appropriate reply was sent by OP1 for rectifying the problem.  

It was stated that the said laptop had no manufacturing defect and the said laptop was under warranty, so under service contract, services would be given and defective parts may also be replaced free of cost.  As the said product was a sophisticated electronic product, so required proper handling and maintenance, but right from first complaint, he was insisting for new laptop from OP1. The complainant did not go to the authorized service centre of OP1, but continuously sending emails though replied accordingly. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

OP2 also submitted their written statement through their authorized representative and asserted that OP2 were retail out let as seller of OP1’s product and had not to do with any service or replacement in the product. It was also stated that the present Hon. Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as cause of action has not arisen in Delhi or under the jurisdiction of this Forum. After sale, the warranty and services were given by the manufacturer ie OP1, hence, OP2 had no role and the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant did not file his rejoinder to both written statement but filed his evidences on affidavit as purchase memo as Annexure CW1/1, Emails as CW1/2 and service engineer report as CW1/3 with a copy of legal notice as CW1/4.  

Both the OPs submitted their evidences on affidavit which were on record.  Arguments were heard from both the parties through their counsels and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP1 that the said laptop had WiFi modem problem, for which OP1 had sent the service engineer to replace, but complainant did not allow to do so which was evident from emails and their replies by OP1. It was also noted that the complainant did not approach to the authorized service centre of OP1 rather sending emails for redressal of his problem. Even the service engineer of OP1 went to replace the WiFi modem, but complainant did not allow and insisted for replacement by a new laptop.

It was also noted that complainant had stated that he suffered his business loss and had to incur heavy loss of money due to the defective laptop of OP1, but there was no evidence on record to show that heavy monetary loss was suffered by complainant and business loss. Being a legal professional, he should have understood that only manufactured defects in the products may be replaced and not for a small defect in the machinery/product. The complainant has failed to prove deficiency in services of OP1 and OP2 by a single concrete evidence.  

Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and the same deserved to be dismissed, so dismissed and there is no order to cost.    

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                            Shri Sukhdev Singh  President