PER URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER The case of the complainant is, that he purchased a laptop Pavillion DV-6137 (Product No. (1P)RM624PA)from OP-1 on 24.02.2007 vide VAT INVOICE under the usual terms of warranty on payment of Rs. 64000/-. OP-2 is the authorized service center of HP. The Complainant gave his laptop to OP-2 on 16.12.2008, which is an HP Authorized Service Centre because of display problem in the laptop. The same party is alleged to have replaced the mother board of the laptop of the Complainant on 17.12.2008 and charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- as the defect had occurred after the warranty period but the old motherboard was never shown to the Complainant. The Complainant further submitted on the asking of OP-2, he got extended the warranty of his laptop for 1 year on 17.12.08 by purchasing “CARE PACK” bearing Serial Number G1NPINOE5359 for laptop on payment of Rs.6180/- whose expiry is dated 27.11.09. On 23.01.09, due to persisting of the problem the Complainant again gave thelaptop to OP-2 for removal of display problem and defect in touch pad and the OP-2 again said that motherboard of the laptop will have to be changed again on receiving the parts in their office. Since then, laptop is lying with the OP-2 and the Complainant is waiting but OP-2 has failed to set his laptop right despite repeated requests. Even the Complainant has personally requested the supplier of the parts Mr. Brijish Harbola on 16.03.09 through e-mail and also received the response thereon through ex-mail but all in vain. The CASE ID :2605438260 and the JOB CARD is 2310. Complainant apprehends that the OP-2 had not replaced the mother board of his laptop with the new motherboard and had illegally charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- by rectifying the defect temporarily as the same defect had occurred again. Moreover, the complainant was never shown the old mother board which the OP-2 claimed to have replaced with a new motherboard. Thus, OP-2 has indulged in unfair trade practice, firstly while concealing the original motherboard from the complainant and secondly while keeping the laptop of the Complainant with them for more than 2 months, without even making the alternative arrangement for him. The Complainant is an engineering student and has spent huge amount on the purchase and repair of the laptop to run his studies smoothly with the help of laptop. On account of not rectifying the defect in the laptop, his studies are highly suffering at the time when his final examinations are about to commence, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The laptop with the alleged replaced motherboard is lying with Complainant as a scrap. Alleging this deficiency on the part of Ops, the Complainant has made following claims_ i) To refund Rs.64,000/- of defective laptop ii) To refund Rs.7,000/- as a price of alleged replaced motherboard iii) To pay Rs.6180/- charged towards CARE PACK iv) To payRs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and loss of studies including expenditure for carrying the laptop for service. 2. We have thoroughly gone through the record put up by the learned counsel for the complainant as well learned counsel for OP-1 and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for OP-1 was present in the initial hearing of the case and reply along with evidence on behalf of OP-1 had been placed on record. In the subsequent hearings since OP-1 or his counsel was not present and it was proceeded against ex parte. On the same lines, Ops 2 & 3 or their learned counsel never made any appearance and were proceeded as ex parte. As per the complaint, all the allegations are about “CARE PACK” which was availed by the complainant from OP-2. Therefore, Ops 1 & 3 have no role to play in the “CARE PACK” availed by the complainant from OP-2. 4. In the reply filed by OP-1, it has been mentioned that the complaint does not lie against the answering OP as the complaint is about “CARE PACK” which was availed by the complainant from the OP-2. Answering OP has no rule to play in the CARE PACK availed by the complainant from the OP-2. 5. The complainant with the help of Vat Invoice, Laptop Product, Cash Memo Bills, outsourcing Memo, Care Pack Certificate, Registration Information, Service Call report and E-mail copies issued by the Op-2 has successfully established on record, that the Laptop in question was purchased for Rs.64000/- plus Rs.7000/- for motherboard replacement for one year extra guarantee, along with Care Pack Recharge for Rs.6180/-, thus totaling of Rs.77,180/-. In addition, from the detailed affidavit filed by the Complainant, it stands further established that the Laptop in question failed to render proper service within few months. Even the replaced motherboard could not rectify the defect. The laptop was handed over to the OP-2 for repair but the OP-2 has not returned the same nor has any alternative arrangement been made. 6. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-2 to handover fully functional said laptop and pay Rs.7000/- for mother board paid by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him, in addition to Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2, not other Ops (Ops 1 & 3). The present complaint stands dismissed qua OP-1 & OP-3. 7. This order be complied with by OP-2 within a period of 6 weeks of the receipt of its certified copy failing which OPs shall pay Rs.17,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 30.03.09 till its realization apart from litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14.10 .2009
| | NONE MRS. URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. JUSTICE LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | NONE MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | | 
