DATE OF FILING : 28-01-2010.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24-05-2010.
Mou Mukherjee,
daughter of Sri Dipti Kumar Mukherjee
of 33/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah and also of 99, G.T. Road ( South ),
P.S. and District – Howrah. ---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. S.S. Infotech,
dealer of computer, Laptop Hardware and software etc.
Of HCL Products, being represented by its partners –
Sunil Sing and
Sushil Kumar Sing
having place of business at 542, G.T. Road ( South ),
1st floor, lP.S. and District – Howrah – 711101.
2. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LIMITED
( Frontline Division ), having its office
At 6, Hungerford Street, “The Regency”
4th Floor, Kolkata – 700017.---------.----------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Hon’ble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
3. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Shri Dilip Kr. Manna,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party no. 1 : Smt. Mallika Roy Chowdhury,
Ld. Advocate.
Opposite Party NO. 2 : Ex parte.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the o.ps. no. 1 & 2.
The facts , in short, is that the complainant Mou Mukherjee, D/o Shri Dipti Kumar Mukherjee, of 33/1, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, has purchased one HCL Laptop/ note book on 15-04-2009 by paying total sum of Rs. 29.000/- by cheque from o.p. no. 1, S.S. Infotech, dealer of computer, Paptop Hardware and Software etc., no. 1 issued invoice cum receipt to the complainant bearing invoice no. 47 dated 15-04-2009 and also applied one warranty card no. 10566629. On the time of purchase the o.p. has assured to give one 4 GB pen drive free of cost as a honorarium gift after clearance of the cheque issued by the complainant.
After some days complainant detected that the laptop was unfastened on 14-04-2009 before the date of purchasing and it was further detected that operating software and anti virus software ( Quick Heal ) installed by the o.p. no. 1. Complainant upon detecting the matter contacted the o.p. no. 1 why such illegal thing has been done. For clarification she has repeatedly contacted with o.p. no. 1 by registered and phone.
After a month complainant detected that the product code of laptop HCL Axop 3833 and in warranty card the same was mentioned as AXOG 3833 and there is no seal or signature in the warranty card. Then he contacted with the o.p. no. 2, Customer Care Officer, HCL Info System Ltd. at 3-17, Sector –II, Noida, on 25-06-2009. About this matter the complainant has repeatedly intimated the o.ps. by letter, email, for redressal. But no action has not been taken from the part of the o.ps.
Again complainant has went to internet in Google search for product of HCL Laptop model number / product code no. AXOG 3833 or Axop 3833 but Google search result was reflected as “did no match any documents”. Thus the complainant prayed for return of total consideration price of Rs. 29,000/- with interest from the date of invoice i.e., 15-04-2009 and taking back the Laptop and for harassment Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and other costs.
Notices were served. The o.p. no. 1 appeared and filed written version but the o.p. no. 2 did not appear and did not file any written version. So the case is heard against the o.p. no. 2 ex parte U/S 13 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the written version the o.p. no. 1 admitted that complainant has purchased one HCL Laptop / note book on 15-04-2009 by paying a sum of Rs. 29,000/- by cheque dated 31-03-2009 being cheque no. 987589 vide invoice no. 47 dated 15-04-2009.
Supply of 4 GB Pen Drive as honorarium is not admitted. Warranty of all items covered by the principal company. Laptop was not unfastened before purchase and was unfastened by the direction of the complainant which was checked and all accessories were o.k.
The o.p. no. 1 has also denied that no software or anti virus were loaded, if loaded than that is by the complainant. Model number of the said HCL Laptop / note book printed in the warranty card is different from the invoice cum receipt one is just a mere typographical mistake subject to rectification.
The model no. AXOG 3833 has been brought directly from the HCL Company ( authorized distributor ) and it has its own website and it does not recognize the other web site. The o.p. no. 1 categorically denied all allegations made against him and so he prays for dismissal of the complaint.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and for brevity.
The o.p. no. 1 agreed that complainant has purchased a laptop / note book on 15-04-2009 vide invoice no. 47 dated 15-04-2009 for Rs. 29,000/-. The software was installed on 14-04-2009 at 07-57 -34 p.m. in the name of S.S.I. as per print out of the computer.
Regarding the product number written in the warranty card is different from in the laptop is a typographical mistake and subject to rectification.
That the o.p. no. 1 denied that model no. AXOG 3833 or Axop 3833 is available or not cannot be ascertained by other website except the website of HCL.
There is no evidence that the o.p. no. 1 has promised to him to supply a 4 G.B. Pen Drive.
Regarding the unfastened of computer before purchase or not ? It has been stated by both the o.p. and the complainant has purchased the laptop / note boom on 15-04-2009 and the o.p. has stated that the software were installed by o.p. and if installed i.e., installed by the complainant. It is clearly evident software were installed on s14-04-2009 before the purchase of the laptop / note book. So the point raised by the o.p. no. 1 does not stand.
Regarding the product number written in the warranty card is different from in the laptop is a typographical mistake and subject to rectification may be considered and can be rectified.
That the o.p. no. 1 denied that model no. AXOG 3833 or Axop 3833 is available or not cannot be ascertained by other website except the website of HCL. It requires o.p. no. 2’s opinion but o.p. no. 2 did not appear even services of notices.
The complainant has purchased a pre-loaded laptop note book from o.p. no. 1. So it is unfair trade practice.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is allowed on contest aginst o.p. no. 1 and ex part against o.p. no. 2 with cost .
That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to refund the purchased money of Rs. 29,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of purchase i.e., 15-04-2009 to the date of refund and take back the defective laptop / note book within 30 days from the date of order.
That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment within 30 days from the date of order.
That the o.p.no. 1 does not comply the aforesaid order within time the o.p. no. 1 is liable to pay interest on the aforesaid total amount @ 8% per annum.
That the o.ps. are also directed not to run this type of unfair trade practice with the consumer.
Let certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
