Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/454/2016

Himanshu Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalsi Computer 'n' - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Gaurav Bhardwaj

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	454/2016
Date of Institution	:	30.06.2016
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Himanshu Gupta s/o Sh.Ashok Chand r/o H.No.1253,Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Kalsi Computer ‘n’ Laptop Store, Shop No.2212, PWT, Manimajra, Chandigarh

 

2.     Sysnet Global Technologies (P) Ltd., Authorized HP Service Centre, SCO No.146-147, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh

 

3.     Hewlett-Packard, India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24 Salarpuria, Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Rajat, Proxy Adv. for Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

                 Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.3.

                 OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a laptop HP Note Book, Model 15 ACO 33TX vide invoice dated 30.08.2015 for Rs.47,500/-, having warranty of one year.  After three months of its purchase, the laptop automatically switched off, and therefore, on the advice of OP No.1, he landed the same with Aforeserve, SCO121-123, 3^rd Floor Sector 34-A, Chandigarh  (Authorized Service Centre) for its repairs and the same was returned to him on 12.12.2015 after replacing the battery.   It has further been averred that on 15.01.2016, the laptop again started giving the same problem and as such, the same was again handed over to the service center and the same was returned after its repairs on 25.01.2016. However, the jot sheet was retained by the service center.  It has further been averred that the computer again started giving the same problem on 12.03.2016 and the same returned to him after replacement of the battery on 18.03.2016 and the job sheet was in possession of the service center.  On 30.04.2016, the same problem again resurfaced and the laptop was retained for 8 days and the same was delivered to him on 09.05.2016 after replacement of the motherboard.  It has further been averred that the laptop in question again became out of order even after replacement of the battery twice and the motherboard.  Subsequently, he approached the Customer Care of OP No.3 who advised him to contact OP No.2.   The complainant landed the laptop with OP No.2 who assured that the same would be replaced within three days. According to the complainant, there is some manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that it has sold the laptop in question being the authorized seller of OP No.3.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant never visited OP No.1. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.3 has pleaded that the OP No.1 is not the authorized dealer of the HP Branded products manufactured by the OP and there is no privity of contract with it and OP No.1.  However, it has been admitted that the laptop in question was under warranty for a period of one year.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant approached with the issues of the battery on 09.12.2015 and 15.03.2016 and the same were resolved by replacing the battery of the laptop on 11.12.2015 and 18.03.2016.  respectively.  Thereafter, he again approached with the issue of the motherboard of the laptop against case ID No.4772312211 and the case was resolved by replacing the motherboard of the laptop as per the warranty obligations.  It has been denied that any assurance for replacement of the laptop as alleged was ever given to the complainant.   It has further been pleaded that as per the warranty policy, its obligations is only to repair the laptop and not to replace the same or to refund the costs as claimed. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.08.2016.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence of the case, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter.  It is an admitted fact between the parties that the laptop in question was under warranty and the battery thereof was changed twice by the authorized service center.  It is also a factum on record that the motherboard of the laptop in question was also replaced on 10.05.2016. The mother board is an important and expensive hardware of any electronic device and the same is generally changed in case there is some major defect in the electronic device. However, in the instant case, though the same has been replaced by the service center of the OPs but still the laptop is still giving the problems, which itself suffice to conclude that the same is suffering from some major defect and the same cannot be set right by effecting the repairs. The laptop in question is still lying in the service center.
7.         Needless to mention here that the complainant has already given a long hand to the Opposite Parties to set right the laptop, in question, but they were unable to make it trouble free and ultimately he has to file the instant complaint for redressal of his grievance. Moreover, he has spent a huge sum of Rs.47,500/- on purchase of the brand new laptop in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving behind the OPs and then to this Forum for seeking justice in the absence of the proper services being rendered by them. We, thus, deem it fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs again to repair the product in question because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product develops the defect again then the complainant will be put to much larger harassment because he has to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for him. 
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under;-

1. To refund Rs.47,500/- being the price of the laptop in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/06/2017 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER