Punjab

Sangrur

CC/757/2015

Nitika Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Goyal Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rahul Sharma

20 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                   

                                                Complaint No.  757

                                                Instituted on:    28.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       20.05.2016

 

Nitika Garg aged 21 years D/o Rajesh Garg, Near Telephone Exchange, C/o Luxmi Traders, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Goyal Computers, Opposite D.C. Office, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

2.             Hewlett Packards India Sales Pvt. Ltd. NDH04, Surya Hotel TD Site, Crown Plaza Surya, E-F, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-100065 through its authorised signatory.

3.             Hewlett Packards India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Head Office 24, Salar Puria, Arena Adugodi Hosur Main Road, Bangalore (Karnataka) through authorised signatory/Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Karan Mehta, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Shri Jagtar Singh, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Ms. Nitika Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one laptop HP-6-1011 TV serial number CND 222 SGJK from OP number 1 vide bill number 3989 dated 14.8.2012 for Rs.40,500/- with one year warranty, which was further got extended for the period of two years meaning thereby the laptop had a warranty of three years. It is further averred that the laptop purchased by the complainant was newly launched and it was known a slim model having slim screen with thin edges. It is further averred that there was manufacturing defect in the laptop in question as on 6.10.2013, as the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP regarding breakage of screen and hinge due to manufacturing defect, as such the OP replaced the screen and hinge of the laptop in question, but it did not work  and again on 21.4.2015, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP, but the OP did not take any action and again the screen and hinge of the laptop damaged due to manufacturing defect in the model.  It is stated that the complainant is doing degree course of computer science from Chitkara University and is suffering a lot due to defective laptop supplied by the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective laptop in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund the purchase price of the laptop i.e. Rs.40,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the laptop in question from OP number 1 and it is further averred that the warranty is always given by the manufacturer, if there is any manufacturing defect in the product.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable, that the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the complaint is false and baseless and without any basis. On merits, it is denied by the OPs that the complainant had purchased HP-6-1011 model laptop from OP number 1 for Rs.40,500/- from OP number 1. It is stated further that from whom the complainant had purchased the laptop, is not the authorised dealer of OP number 1, as such OP number 2 and 3 are not responsible for that act. It is stated further that the complainant lodged the complaint on 6.10.2013 with Ops regarding breakage of screen and hinge due to manufacturing defect because the screen and hinge is so slim/them, that it cannot bear the weight and no screen can be fitted to tighten it,  as such he said complaint of the complainant was attended to promptly and it was found that the issue in the laptop was due to physical damage caused to the laptop, which is also considered to be customer induced damage and is not covered under the warranty, the damage is due to an external element and not due to any manufacturing defect.  It is stated further that the accidental damage is not covered under the normal warranty.  It has been further stated that the complainant lodged various complaints on 10.6.2013, 30.8.2013, 18.10.2013, 29.5.2014, 9.6.2014, 21.4.2015 and 28.4.2015 with the customer care of the Ops reporting that the laptop in question fell down and after which the laptop is not powering on and that complaints of the complainant were duly attended and it was found that the damage to the laptop is due to physical damage caused by the complainant.   It is stated that physical damage is not covered under the warranty, as such, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of bill dated 14.8.2012, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of DMC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice dated 14.08.2012 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the laptop in question for Rs.40,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the laptop in question and availed the services of the OP number 1. It is also on the record that the laptop in question is manufactured by Ops number 2 and 3.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that since the laptop was newly launched by the OPs in the slim model and was having slim screen and thin edges, as such, the screen of the laptop in question damaged as it was suffering from manufacturing defects, which was replaced by the Ops.  It is further contended that again the screen of the laptop damaged due to manufacturing defect on 21.4.2015, as such, the complainant again approached the Ops for its replacement as the laptop in question was under the extended warranty period, but the Ops failed to replace the same.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the complainant had purchased the laptop in question from OP number 1, but it is stated that the warranty is to provided by the manufacturer i.e. OPs number 2 and 3 as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops number 1 has been denied.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops number 2 and 3 has contended that the Op number 1 is not the authorised dealer of OPs/manufacturer.  But, we may mention that it is not the case of the Ops that the laptop is not manufactured by OPs number 2 and 3 and the fact remains that the laptop in question was manufactured by Ops number 2 and 3 and the warranty was also provided by Ops number 2 and 3, as during the warranty period the Ops number 2 and 3 replaced the screen and hinges of the laptop in question.  Had there been no warranty/extended warranty provided by the Ops number 2 and 3, then they would not have replaced the screen and hinges of the laptop in question.  Further the Ops number 2 and 3 have though mentioned in the reply that the complainant lodged so many complaints on various dates saying that the laptop in question fell down and due to that its screen was damaged, but the Ops have not produced on record any documentary evidence to support this contention of the Ops number 2 and 3.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that if the complainant had lodged the complaints on various dates with the customer care of the OPs number 2 and 3, then why they did not produce the same on the record and why they concealed such complaints lodged with the Ops. The Ops number 2 and 3 though has filed the affidavit of Spurthi Mouli, authorised signatory of the Ops as Ex.OP2&3/1, but there is nothing mentioned, more so when, it is the repetition of the written reply filed by the Ops number 2 and 3. Again, it is worth mentioning here that the Ops have not mentioned anything about the non production of the complaints lodged by the complainant with the Ops number 2 and 3 regarding the felling down of the laptop and breakage of screen and hinge etc.  In result, we feel that the laptop in question was having one year warranty and further two years extended warranty, during which the laptop in question developed defects, which are beyond repairs.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the laptop in question supplied by the Ops to the complainant was defective one, which requires to be replaced with a new one.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to replace the defective laptop in question with a new one within a period of thirty days, failing which to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,500/- being the cost of the laptop, however, subject to the returning of the defective laptop in question along with all the accessories to the Ops number 2 and 3 at the time of receiving the payment of the laptop.  The OPs number 2 and 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 20, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member