Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/237/2021

Sh. Narinder Mehra, Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jetage Computer Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Aseem Gupta

01 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/237/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2021

 

Sh. Narinder Mehra, Advocate, R/o H.No.1093, Sector 18C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Jetage Computer Traders, having its office at SCO 12, 1^st Floor, Sector 17E, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/Authorised person.
2. Hewlett – Packard Company (HP), having its Head Office at #24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi Hosur Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India – 560017, through its Chairman/Directors/Authorized Representative.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nikhil Sharma, Vice Counsel for Sh. Aseem Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      The facts in brief are on 3.12.2018, complainant visited the shop/showroom of OP-1 and purchased HP Desktop All in One manufactured by OP-2 for his personal use and paid consideration of ₹38,000/- inclusive of taxes. The said computer system did not function well since day of purchase and was running slow and started hanging.  Ultimately the complainant lodged a complaint on 12.4.2019 which was attended by the service engineer Mr. Gaurav Rampal on 13.4.2019 and some service/repair was done.  However, the complainant again faced similar issues for which he registered another complaint on 13.5.2019 which was again attended by Mr. Gaurav Rampal on 14.5.2019 and the hard disk was replaced.  The complainant alleged that he was supplied a poor quality computer system by the OPs and since the problems were not resolved, he was forced to register another complaint on 28.5.2019. Mr. Gaurav Rampal attended the complaint on 29.5.2019 and once again the hard disk was replaced. Averred, subsequently the computer system started generating heat and the mouse and keyboard also stopped working, but, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant could not register another complaint in the year 2020.  However, as the computer system purchased from the OPs was faulty, the complainant’s kids could not join their online classes which hampered their studies. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.1.2021 to the OPs for replacing the computer system or refund of the amount alongwith interest, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     Registered notices were sent to the OPs which were presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of the OPs, therefore, vide order dated 19.7.2021 of this Commission, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
5.     Ex. C-2 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 3.12.2018 vide which the complainant purchased an HP Desktop (HP All in One) from OP-1 which was manufactured by OP-2 on payment of consideration of ₹38,000/-. The case of the complainant is that the said computer system did not function properly right from beginning as it was running slow and started hanging. The complainant time and again lodged complaints with the OPs in pursuance to which the service engineer of the OPs visited the complainant’s place. Ex.C-3 is the service call report dated 13.04.2019 wherein the issue description is mentioned as “Machine is not booting properly” and some setting was done.  Ex.C-4 is copy of service call report dated 14.05.2019 wherein the issue description is mentioned as “Hard disk not getting detected” upon which the hard disk was replaced.  Ex.C-5 is copy of another service call report dated 29.5.2019 wherein the issue description is again mentioned as “Hard disk not getting detected and generating failure…” upon which the hard disk was replaced and the operating system was installed. Perusal of these documents clearly shows that within a period of just about six months of purchase, three complaints were lodged with the OPs in regard to the problems faced by the complainant and in fact even the hard disk was replaced twice. It is worth mentioning here that the hard disk is one of the major components of the computer system and replacement thereof, not once but twice, within a period of just about six months of purchase is in itself sufficient to prove that there was some inherent defect in the system. In support of his contentions, complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit.
6.     The complainant has also placed on record Ex.C-10 which is a copy of the reply dated 2.2.2021 sent on behalf of OP-2 to the legal notice of the complainant. In this reply itself the facts with regard to purchase of the computer system by the complainant, receipt of complaints dated 8.4.2019, 9.5.2019 and 24.5.2019 from him and replacement of hard disk were admitted. The reply to the legal notice is simply evasive and treads on the line that the computer system in question is sophisticated electronic equipment consisting of various minute components which may fail at any point and that the computer in question being an electronic system is always vulnerable to failure due to various reasons. There is no dispute with regard to the above, however, it is nowhere stated in the aforesaid reply to the legal notice that there was only some software issue with the computer system or that the complainant mishandled the same.
7.     Further, in order to rebut the allegations of the complainant, it was imperative for the OPs to have filed their written reply alongwith some cogent evidence. However, what to talk of rebutting the allegations, OPs did not put in appearance before this Commission and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them and proves that they have nothing to say in their defence qua the allegations made by the complainant. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the allegations of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Hence, OPs are proved to have indulged in deficiency in service as they neither replaced the computer system in question nor refunded the price thereof.
8.     The complainant had parted with a hefty amount for the purchase of the computer system in question for his use and convenience, but, due to major defect in the system and failure of the OPs to remove them, he had to suffer unnecessary harassment and was deprived of proper usage of the same.  We are of the view that since hard disk - a major component in the computer system - had to be replaced twice just within a period of about six months, it is sufficient enough proof to hold that the computer system certainly suffers from some inherent defect which is beyond repair and no useful purpose would be served in directing the OPs to repair the same again. To put an end to the ordeal of the complainant, we feel it will be apt if OPs are directed to return the amount paid by him. 
9.     In view of above discussion, present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund amount of ₹38,000/- spent by the complainant for the purchase of the computer system in question alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. date of purchase i.e. 03.12.2018 till payment. OPs are at liberty to pick the defective system from the complainant’s place at their cost.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/10/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	President