BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.322 of 2014 Date of Institution: 2.9.2014
Date of Decision: 29.1.2015
Parminder Singh son of Sucha Singh, resident of Village Sadhu Shah Wala, Zira Road, Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Netcom Computers, Anand Market, opposite Khalsa Gurudawara, Ferozepur Cantt, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. H.P. India Sales Private Limited 24, Salar Puria Arena Building, Adugodi Hosur Road, Bangalore 560030, through its Manager.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Sushil Arora, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. A.S. Sodhi, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one new Laptop make HP-650 from opposite party No.1, who is
C.C. No.322 of 2014 \\2//
the authorized dealer of HP concern i.e. opposite party No.2, vide invoice No.R/445 dated 4.12.2013, with one year warranty. Further it has been pleaded that after purchase of Laptop in question, the complainant used the same, but it automatically heat up and turned off itself. The complainant brought the said fact in the notice of opposite party No.1, who advised the complainant to call toll free number of opposite party No.2. The complainant made a call on the said number and reported the matter to the service centre of opposite party No.2. They assured that one of their sales representatives will come and remove the defect, but nobody approached the complainant for removing the defect. The complainant is visiting frequently to opposite party No.1 and also called on toll free number of opposite party No.2, but the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. The complainant has alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the laptop and the opposite parties have sold defective laptop. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective laptop with new one or to refund its price. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite
C.C. No.322 of 2014 \\3//
party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant has used the laptop for nine months before filing the complaint. The warranty is not given by opposite party No.1, but the customer becomes to the warranty which has been given by the company itself. A laptop is almost always repaired by a highly trained mechanic or engineer of the manufacturing company itself. Whenever a customer comes with a complaint about a laptop, he is given the toll free number of the company and response of the company is almost immediate. The complaint of the customer is recorded and a complaint number is given to the customer. Opposite party No.1 has no role in the entire complaint making process, neither he is responsible or liable in any manner. Opposite party No.2 is a reputed company known for its after sale service. Whenever a customer comes with a complaint about a laptop he is given the toll free number of the company and the response of the company is almost immediate. Opposite party No.1 has no role in the entire complainant making process, neither is he responsible or liable in any manner. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the product manufactured by opposite party No.2 pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production. The laptop in question was provided with one year warranty from the date
C.C. No.322 of 2014 \\4//
of purchase. The complainant reported the issue of automatic shut down on 23.4.2014 and on receipt of the complaint, an engineer of the service centre of the opposite party visited the complainant and inspected the laptop and had resolved the issue on 24.4.2014. Thereafter, the complainant has not lodged any service request and reported any issue either to opposite party No.2 or its customer care centre/service centre. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/3 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-2/1 to Ex. OP-2/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have sold defective laptop having manufacturing defect to the complainant and they have failed to provide after sale service and repair the laptop in question despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, opposite party
C.C. No.322 of 2014 \\5//
No.2 has pleaded that the complainant reported the issue of automatic shut down on 23.4.2014 and on receipt of the complaint, an engineer of the service centre of the opposite party visited the complainant and inspected the laptop and had resolved the issue on 24.4.2014. A perusal of copy of Service Call Request Ex.OP-1/3 also reveals that the complainant had reported the issue of Auto Shutdown in the laptop in question to the opposite parties, which was rectified by the Engineer of opposite party No.2 on 24.4.2014. No evidence has been produced by the complainant that prior to 24.4.2014, he had ever approached the opposite parties with any problem in the laptop in question. No expert opinion/evidence has been placed on the file by the complainant to prove that the laptop in question has any manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified and warrants replacement of the laptop in question. Affidavit of one Sanjeev Behal, placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-3, is also of no help to the complainant. The laptop in question was purchased by the complainant on 4.12.2013 with one year warranty. As per Service Call Request Ex.OP-1/3, the complainant approached the opposite party for repair of the laptop in question with the issue of Auto Shutdown, which was rectified by the Service Engineer of opposite party No.2 on 24.4.2014. Since the complainant had approached opposite party No.2 for repair of the laptop in question within warranty period, but has failed to prove the alleged
C.C. No.322 of 2014 \\6//
manufacturing defect in the laptop in question, he is not entitled to replacement of the laptop in question or refund of its price. However, the opposite parties are liable to repair the laptop in question and to put it in proper working condition to the entire satisfaction of the complainant free of cost.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to repair the laptop in question and to put it in proper working condition to the entire satisfaction of the complainant free of cost. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
29.1.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
