DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.458/2011
Sh. Subhash Kalra
S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
R/o H.No.136, Sultanpur Extension,
M.G. Road, Mehrauli, Delhi- 110030
….Complainant
Versus
HCL Info System Limited
Through its Prop/Partner/Director/Principal Officer
S-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi- 110016
S.S.D.N. Info Solutions
Through its Prop/Partner/Director/Principal Officer
G-2, Raja House, 30-31, Nehru Place,
New Delhi
HCL Info System Limited
Through its Prop/Partner/Director/Principal Officer
D-223, Sector-63, Noida-201301, UP
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.11.2011
Date of Order : 16.09.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
- Succinctly put, the complainant purchased HCL Laptop Computer bearing Model No. HCL M8XITE45 from SSDN Info Solution (OP-2). Complainant paid Rs.31,090/- towards full sale consideration for the Laptop, with minimum warranty of one year. Photocopy of the invoice is annexed as annexure C/1. HCL Info System Ltd. the manufacturer of the said Laptop, is arrayed as OP-3 and HCL Info System Ltd. the service centre is arrayed as OP-1 in the present complaint.
- It is stated that just after 3-4 days from the date of purchase the Laptop started creating problems and was not running properly therefore complainant made a complaint to OP-2 verbally as well as through e-mail but OP-1 and OP-2 assured the complainant again and again that the said Laptop would run properly after sometime. It is stated that the complainant handed over the Laptop to OP-2 on 23.09.2010, 01.10.2010, 17.11.2010 and 07.01.2011 but OP-1 &
OP-2 failed to rectify the defects in the Laptop.
- Thereafter, the complainant moved an application before the mediation and conciliation centre, wherein the OPs after getting the Laptop checked by the technical engineer found that it was a defective piece. The OPs agreed to replace the defective Laptop with the new Laptop declaring the Serial No. and Model of the Laptop in the invoice challan No. 1102 dated 04.04.2011 with the minimum warranty of one year. Photocopy of the challan is annexed as annexure C/6.
- It is next stated that the complainant was again shocked to find that the replaced Laptop was also having manufacturing and inherent defects right from the beginning. The Laptop was not working properly, it was hanging, the DVD writer, headphone, card-reader etc. were all giving problems. The complainant again requested the OPs that the replaced Laptop was also defective and requested them either to replace or to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.31,090/- alongwith interest.
- Alleging, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice complainant prays for directions to OP to refund the amount of sale consideration of the Laptop i.e. Rs.31,090/- @18% per annum jointly or severally and for directions to OP to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and tension to the complainant alongwith litigation charges.
- None appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte on 24.05.2012. OP-1 and OP-3 were proceeded against exparte on 23.11.2012. Exparte evidence and written arguments are filed on behalf of the complainant. Written arguments are filed on behalf of OP-1 & OP-3. Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- Complainant in support of his case has filed an invoice in the name of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. Complainant has not established his relationship with Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. However, the contact number on the invoice matches with the complainant therefore it is presumed that inadvertently his name could not be recorded on the invoice. From the job sheet filed by the complainant, it is noticed that barring once, most of the times the action taken in the job sheets was that of reloading the operating system, which means that the hardware of the Laptop as such was not defective. However, as the parties approached the mediation, OP replaced it with a new Laptop on 04.04.11. Complainant remained dissatisfied with the new Laptop as well, hence he sought refund from OP. Complainant did not place any job sheets regarding the replaced the new one. On asking of this Commission, complainant filed exhibit C/7, wherein he has filed certain mails written to OP. It is seen from the mails that on 03.05.2011 OP reverted back asking the complainant to send scanned copy of the invoice and warranty card. OP requested the complainant to visit the Delhi Service Centre so that the complainant’s Laptop could be diagnosed and the issue persisting could be sorted out.
7. Thereafter, no job sheet has been placed on record. It is seen from the record that in the first Laptop the issue was mostly of operating system and in the replaced new Laptop complainant is complaining of the Computer hanging most of the time, DVD writer, the head panel and card-reader not working properly. The problems referred to by the complainant are primarily, either of the software or of the accessories and not the main Machine/Laptop. It seems that the complainant himself was not technically sound that is why the operating system had to be repeatedly installed. The problem of the DVD writer and card-reader also arises on account of improper handling and usage. It is seen that even at the time of the first Laptop, OP provided the services to the complainant as and when required and also has replaced the old Laptop with a new one. Therefore, we don’t find OP to be deficient in service. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
