DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1051 of 2009 Date of Inst: 24.07.2009 Date of Decision:06.10.2010 Gaurav Sethi son of Shri R.K.Sethi, Prop. of M/s IDEAS, House NO.1013, Sector 4, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Lakhwinder Sharma, Digilife, Zink Gadget World, DSS 9, Panchkula (Haryana). 2. HCL, Head Customer Care, HCL Infosystems Ltd., E-4, 5, 6, Sector 11, Noida (U.P.). 3. HCL, Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.2453-54, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Adv. for OPs No.2 and 3. OP-1 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Gaurav Sethi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.44,710/- being the price of the laptop/Tablet PC with interest @ 12% from the date of its purchase till realization. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.15000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Laptop (Model No.Z35) vide invoice No.137 dated 25.07.2008 for a sum of Rs.44,710/- from OP-1. According to the complainant, from the day of its purchase the laptop was not functioning properly. So the complainant approached OP-1 who advised him to approach OP-3 for rectification of the defects. On checking the laptop, OP-3 told him that there was some problem in driver of touch screen and therefore, the complainant should contact OP-2. The complainant approached OP-2 who tried to rectify the defect but failed. Ultimately, OP-2 advised the complainant to contact the service center at Pondichery. So the complainant approached it. After five months of follow up, the complainant succeeded in replacement of the driver of the touch screen. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that later on the problem of display occurred in the screen. He took the laptop to OP-3 who changed the LCD cable and made it functional. However, the same problem again arose twice. Each time, LCD cable was changed and the laptop was made functional. According to the complainant, backup of the battery is also very low. Therefore, the same was also changed by OP-3 on 08.06.2009. The case of the complainant that the laptop in question is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect due to which the problems of screen display occurred frequently within a short span of its purchase. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs No.2 and 3, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the laptop/Tablet PC in question on 25.07.2008 from OP-1. It has been pleaded that the complainant approached the OPs for rectification of flickering problems on 16.012.2008, 03.04.2009, 08.06.2009 and 10.07.2009. It has further been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, OPs carried out the desired repairs and replaced the LCD Cable and battery with new one. According to OPs No.1 and 2, now there is no cause of action to file the present complaint. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them. 4. Initially, OP-1 appeared in person but subsequently he remained absent and therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.10.2009 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Annexure A-1 is the copy of the Invoice No.137 dated 25.07.2008 vide which the complainant purchased the laptop from OP-1 for an amount of Rs.44,710/-. Annexure A-2 to A-5 are the copies of the job cards. A perusal of the same makes it clear that the LCD cable of the laptop in question has been changed thrice by the OPs i.e. on 16.12.2008, 03.04.2009 and 13.07.2009 due to screen display problems within the short span of period of its repairs. The frequently changing of the LCD Cable on account of screen display problem of the Laptop in question itself shows that the laptop is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired by replacing the LCD cable etc. In case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Cdr. Udaybi reported in I(2008) CPJ-490 (NC), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that where the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop for rectifying the defects on number of occasions and even thereafter the said defects were not set right, it amounts to deficiency in service. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in the case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Charan Negi reported in IV(2007) CPJ 167. The Hon'ble State Commission has further held as under: “A consumer purchases new article to save himself from the inconvenience of second hand article as in the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to take the vehicle time and again for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable and in such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately”. 7. In view of the above judgement, the OPs cannot avoid its liability to repair/replace the defective Laptop in question. In these circumstances, from the evidence discussed above, it is duly proved that the laptop in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. 8. The complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP-1 and therefore, the complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction the OPs No.2 and 3 to refund Rs.44,170/- being the price of the laptop in question to the complainant. OPs No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs No.2 and 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs No.2 and 3 shall be liable to refund the aforesaid total amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.07.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 06.10.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1051 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 21.09.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 06.10.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
