Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/95/2022

Vikash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HP Computing and Printing System India (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Mohan Sharma & Anil Gogna, Ms. Sucheta Sharma & Ms Mridul Gogan, Adv

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	95 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	28.01.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	14.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Vikash Kumar son of Sh.Dalbir Singh, resident of House No.1199, Phase-1,Ramdarbar, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s HP Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, “Hewlett Packard” Global Soft Private Limited, EC-2 Campus, HP Avenue, Survey No.39 (PART), Electronic City Phase-II, Hosur Road Bangalore 560 100 through its Director/Authorized Person

2]  M/s H & H Technologies Private Limited, SCO No.198-200, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager.

3]  M/s Sysnet Global Technologies Private Limited, SCO No.85-86, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager.   

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.K.K.KAREER             PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.Vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate for complainant

 

     Opposite Parties exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant precisely is that he purchased HP Notebook of OP No.1 Company from authorized dealer – M/s G.K.Enterprises, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh on 7.1.2021 on making payment of Rs.53,000/- against bill Ann.C-2.  It is stated that the notebook in question started giving problem soon after its purchase, so it was taken to OP No.2, service centre of OP No.1, firstly on 4.8.2021, secondly on 16.8.2021 and thirdly on 20.11.2021 when major repairs of replacement of panel and motherboard of notebook was made  (Ann.C-3, C-4 & C-4A).  However, the notebook was still giving problem even after repairs done third time and replacement of major parts.  Therefore, the complainant sent emails to the OPs requesting to replace it with new one, but the same was denied saying that warranty period expired and the repairs can be got done by complainant on chargeable basis (Ann.C-5 & C-6 colly). Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       OPs No.1 to 3 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.5.2022 & 1.9.2022 respectively.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire record.  

 

5]       All the assertions of the complainant are being corroborated by the evidence placed on record pertaining to that the HP Notebook purchased by the complainant on 7.1.2021 was found to be defective by the complainant and the matter was apprised to the OPs and despite all the rectification done by the service centre of the OPs, it did not function well. It reveals that the notebook in question was taken to OP Service Centre thrice and finally when it was returned to the complainant on 26.11.2021 (Ann.C-4/A), it was found that major replacement of parts i.e. Display panel and mother board was done.  However, despite of major repair done on 20.11.2021, the Notebook did not function properly and same snag again developed.  The OPs were again apprised about it vide email dated 7.1.2022 and repeated request made by the complainant for replacement of Notebook in question go futile. 

 

6]       After giving meticulous reading to the record and emails exchanged between the parties (Ann.C-5 & C-6 colly), it is clear that the request of the complainant for replacement of the notebook in question has been denied and he has been asked to get it repaired on chargeable basis. The complainant agitated the matter with the OPs that the fault lies with their Service Centre who failed to raise the claim for replacement of notebook on behalf of complainant despite repeated requests but it was not entertained. 

 

7]       We are of the considered view that there is not only deficiency in service on the part of OPs but they also indulged into unfair trade practice, who lingered on the matter to such an extent to exhaust the warranty period, whereas the notebook in question was giving problems soon its purchase and even after repeated repairs during the warranty period.

 

8]       The OPs despite being duly served, chose not to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint, which raise a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Parties have nothing to contradict meaning thereby that they duly admits the claim of the complainant.  

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OPs not only remained deficient in their service but also resorted to unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with direction to refund the cost of notebook i.e. Rs.53000/- (One Lakh Only) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment – 7.1.2021 till the date of payment, apart from paying a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the harassment suffered by him and for thrusting avoidable litigation upon him.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14^th November, 2022                                                                         Sd/-

(K.K.KAREER)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER