DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 199 of 16.9.2015

                                      Decided on: 26.4.2017

Pardeep Kaur, aged 23 years daughter of Kulwant Singh, resident of village Mohali, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, now resident of c/o Major Singh son of Sh.Gajjan Singh, H.no.27, Gali No.30, Anand Nagar –B, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Infotech Computer, A Unit of Complete Hardware Solutions, Gillan Street, Nabha, District Patiala.

2.       Customer Care Executive, Hawlet Packard, India Sales Private Limited 24, Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Banglore 560030.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.H.S.Sakrali,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Gaurav Singla,Advocate,counsel for

                                          opposite party No.2.                             

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER        

1.               The complainant purchased one HP 15-ROO5TX Laptop(computer) bearing Sr.No.CND4266R9J and HP1005 printer from OP no.1 vide bill No.191 on  19.9.2014 for a sum of Rs.49,400/-. The said laptop was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1 by availing loan from Punjab National Bank branch at Amargarh, District Sangrur as such original bill vide which the above said computer Laptop and Printer were purchased was lying with the P.N.B.Bank, branch at Amargarh. It is averred that on 13.8.2015, when the complainant opened the laptop computer, its opening part opened but stopped in the middle and it failed to work. The complainant tried her best but it did not open. The complainant sent a telephonic message to OP no.1.On the complaint, filed by the complainant, OP no.1 asked the complainant to disclose her address and also told her that its mechanic will come to her residence to inspect the laptop and will remove the defect. On 20.7.2015, one person came to the complainant’s residence and after checking the laptop computer told the complainant to take it to OP no.1 i.e. the seller. Accordingly the complainant approached OP no.1, who kept the laptop on its showroom and returned the same to the complainant after fixing tape on the plate at the lower portion of the laptop stating that temporarily the laptop had been set right and also told the complainant that as and when OP no.1 will receive the spare parts of the said laptop from OP no.2, OP no.1 will replace the same. The complainant brought the laptop back but when she again tried to open the laptop she found that the same problem still persisted. She again contacted OP no.1 but OP no.1 refused to hear the genuine request of the complainant. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony. The failure on the part of the OP to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Ultimately she approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.

2.               Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.2 only who appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In the written version filed by Op no.2, it has taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Act and that the complainant has filed a baseless and frivolous complaint. On merits, it is stated that  OP no.1 i.e. Infotech Computer, a unit of Completer Hardware Solutions, Gillan Street, Nabha is not its authorized dealer/partner//service provider and it ( Op no.2) is neither responsible nor liable for the sale of the laptop and the printer in question or the appraisals/promises and assurances made by Op no.1. It is admitted that the said laptop and the printer is manufactured by it and the same carried warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. It is further stated that Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt Ltd. i.e. Op no.2 is a customer friendly company and if customer has any genuine complaint, the company has no problem in redressing the same . It is further stated that it has an efficient Complaint Redressal Department and Customer Care Centers with 24 hours toll free numbers and on verifying customer care data base, based on serial no. of product purchased by the complainant in the present case, it was found that the complainant had registered complaints on two occasions with regard to the issues in the laptop in question i.e. 17.3.2015 vide case ID No.4748489750 for the laptop not booting against which the Customer Care Centre team guided the complainant to run Recovery to resolve the reported issues for which the complainant informed that, she will do it later as per her convenience. That again on 13.8.2015, she lodged a complaint vide ID No.4757742742 having reported the issue of Hinge broken, upon which the Customer care Team promptly attended to her complaint and on inspection of the laptop it was learnt that the issue reported by the complainant was caused due to multiple parts damage which is not covered under the terms of the warranty and the complainant was informed accordingly. However, the complainant was offered to resolve the issues on chargeable basis as per the terms of the warranty but the same was not acceptable to her and she wanted the resolution of the issues in the laptop free of costs which is not permissible under the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. There is no issue or inherent manufacturing defect in the Laptop, purchased by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.               In support of her case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed her evidence.

                  Whereas counsel for Op no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Smt.Spruthi Mouli, authorized signatory of OP no.2 and closed the evidence.

4.               The parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the the ld. counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record.

5.               Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one laptop computer from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.49,400/- on 19.9.2014.For 11 months the laptop worked properly and ultimately on 13.8.2015, some problem cropped up in the laptop and the complainant approached OP no.1 and lodged a complaint on the same date i.e. 13.8.2015. On 20.8.2015, mechanic of OP no.1 visited the house of the complainant. Though this date is mentioned as 20.7.2015 in the complaint but this seems to be a typographical mistake. The mechanic told the complainant to contact Op no.1. OP no.1 fixed tape on the plate of the lower portion of the laptop stating that temporarily the defect has been rectified and further also told the complainant that as and when OP no.1 will receive the spare part from OP no.2, it will replace the same. The only plea taken by Op no.2 is that issue reported by the complainant was caused due to multiple parts damage which is not covered under the terms of the warranty. Ex.C2 is the job card in which the problem mentioned is “Taking snapshot of the damaged part for updating” and the warranty status  is also shown as _____ i.e. yes. Though Op no.2 has submitted that the laptop of the complainant got defective due to physical damage, due to which its warranty became void, but Op no.2 has failed to produce on record any expert opinion or any other evidence on record in this regard. Whereas, the job sheet clearly shows that the laptop got defective during the warranty period, which shows that OP was bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to  deficiency in service on its part.

6.               As an upshot of aforesaid discussions, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the problem in the laptop computer without charging any amount from the complainant and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment under gone by  her alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by Op no.2 within a period of 30 days of the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:26.4.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER