ASHOK KUMAR filed a consumer case on 27 Apr 2016 against M/S HCL INFO SYS LIMITED in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/213/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Apr 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No.: 213 of 2011
Date of Institution : 11.07.2011
Date of Decision : 27.04.2016
Ashok Kumar S/o Mohan Lal R/o Village Babyal, Tehsil & District Ambala.
……….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s HCL Info Sys Limited, Branch Office at 2nd Floor, SCO 2441-42, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
Present Address: M/s HCL Info Sys Ltd., SCO 66-67, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
2. M/s Saughat, 105-106, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he purchased a computer Model AQ 436+BG285+1958 manufactured by OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide invoice No.3358 dated 27.10.2006 in a sum of Rs.36500/- having warranty of two years and thereafter complainant further purchased Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) from OP No.1 for the period from 27.09.2008 to 26.09.2010. As per terms & conditions of AMC, all the terms & conditions printed on the warranty card for standard one year, will remain applicable for the AMC as well. It has been further contended by the complainant that in the first week of September 2010, the computer started giving trouble of display, so the complainant immediately contacted the Customer Care Service Centre of OP No.1 vide job card no.2743 dated 14.09.2010 where the officials of Service Centre received the Computer (MBD) for replacement but failed to deliver the same to the complainant despite his repeated requests and reminders rather no satisfactory reply was given to complainant. Since then, OP No.1 is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, complainant has contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for granting of relief as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint.
2. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written statement & affidavit wherein he admitted that they have sold the computer in question to the complainant in 2006 having one year warranty and the problem occurred in mother board in 2010, so there is no deficiency on their part and the AMC was made by complainant with HCL company i.e. OP No.1 after the expiry of warranty, so they are not responsible in any way in the matter. After filing reply, OP No.2 did not bother to contest the case and thus he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.04.2013 whereas Op No.1 did not bothered to appear despite registered notice and as such, he was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.11.2013.
3. To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record carefully. Annexure C-1 is the copy of purchase bill of the computer in question, Annexure C-2 is the AMC Registration Form and Annexure C-3 is the copy of complaint dated 14.09.2010 made by complainant to HCL Customer Service Centre vide job card no.2743. From perusal of document Annexure C-3, it reveals that computer became defective on 14.09.2010 with problem of ‘Beep Problem No Display’ and was retained by the Op Service Centre for replacement. Further perusal of document Annexure C-2 reveals that the AMC of the computer was for two years ranging from 27.09.2008 to 26.09.2010 with a rider that ‘The terms and conditions printed on the warranty card for standard one year warranty remain applicable for the AMC as well’.
5. From the above, it is crystal clear that during the AMC period (27.09.2008 to 26.09.2010), the computer system got Beep Problem & No Display etc. and the OP’s No.1 Service Centre retained computer (MBD) for replacement. But the OP No.1 neither returned the computer to the complainant after repair nor replaced the same till date as per version of complainant. Even otherwise, OP No.1 did not bother to appear & rebut the contention of complainant inspite of service through Regd. Post and thus we have no option except to believe the version of complainant. Hence, we are of the confirmed view that the Op No.1 is negligent & deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the Op No.1 is guilty of gross negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. As such, the Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order:-
Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP No.1 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 27.04.2016 Sd/-
(A.K. SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.