Haryana

StateCommission

A/845/2016

SOHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW TECH COMPUTERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV KUMAR SAINI

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      845 of 2016

Date of Institution:      15.09.2016

Date of Decision :       18.10.2016

 

Sohan Singh s/o Sh. Ram Phal, Resident of Village Ardana, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      New Tech Computers, Shop No.16, Refinery Township, Panipat through its Proprietor Surender.

2.      Surender s/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Proprietor M/s New Tech Computers, Village Balla, near Padha’s Chaupal, District Karnal.

3.      Hewlett Packward India Sales Private Limited Ground Floor, Crowne Plaza, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 through its Manager/Director/Chairman.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated August 4^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Sohan Singh-complainant (appellant herein), filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he had purchased a new HP Pavilion Laptop from  Surender-Opposite Party No.2 proprietor of New Tech Computers-opposite party No.1 for Rs.30,500/- vide bill dated 21^st September, 2011.  It was manufactured by Hewlett Packard India Sales Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3.   The grievance of the complainant was that the product sold by the opposite parties to him was having manufacturing defect. Thus, he claimed refund of the laptop price alongwith interest and compensation.

3.                The opposite parties while denying the allegations of the complainant stated that the complainant never complained to them with respect to any defect in the laptop. The complainant had earlier filed complaint No.89 of 2012 on the similar cause of action which was decided vide order dated 20.03.2013 directing the opposite parties to rectify the defect in the laptop. However, the complainant did not turn up to get the alleged defect rectified. Thus, the opposite parties prayed that complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint observing as under:-

“7.     The complainant in his complaint has alleged that since April, 2014 the laptop has stopped working, but he has not placed on record any job sheet to show that he ever lodged any complaint. As per written statement of the Ops, it has been stated that the complainant did not produce the laptop in question for rectifying the problem and the same was got produced before this Forum by moving an application during the execution proceedings. As per order dated 19.11.2013, passed in the execution, the complainant suffered a statement to the effect that laptop in question has been received in the court alongwith the copy of bill dated 9.10.2013 (Ex.R2) which shows that it was repaired and note book K-B was found to be compatible. Rest of note book is O.K. The complainant in the present complaint has also failed to bring on record any evidence on the file to show that the said laptop (repaired as per Ex.R2) suffered any problem or defect even after it was used by the complainant for a considerable period of time after it was got repaired by the Ops. The fact remains that the said laptop was purchased in the month of September 2011 and as such it carries one year warranty and during period of warranty it was got repaired by the Ops, so as a result thereof at this stage the laptop in question is out of warranty. So, as a result thereof, we therefore, find no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, so the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.”

5.                Indisputably, the laptop was purchased by the complainant on 21^st September, 2011 with one year warranty. It is also not in dispute that the laptop was repaired by the opposite parties as per direction issued by the District Forum in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant. The complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in the laptop. He has used the same for a considerable period and the defect complained by the complainant was rectified during warranty period. Thus, the complainant cannot be allowed to claim any compensation after the warranty period. The District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. In view of this no case for granting compensation is made out. 

6.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 18.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL