Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/645/2014

Anoop Chaturvedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	645/2014
Date of Institution	:	10.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	24/04/2015

 

                                                

                                               

Anoop Chaturvedi s/o Sh.S.K.Chaturvedi r/o 1574, ESIC Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (through Proprietor /Authorized Signatory) A-1, Sector 81, Noida Phase-II, Noida 201301.

2.       Digital Compusystems Pvt. Ltd. (Samsung Store) through Proprietor /Authorized Signatory, G-6, Red Rose Building, 49/50, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

3.       SUPRT TECH ENGINEERS (Samsung Service Centre) through Proprietor /Authorized Signatory, Plot No.182/34, Industrial Area, Phase-I,  Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                        Sh.Puneet Tuli, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 3.

                        OP No.2 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that since     purchasing of the new lap top make Samsung Model No.NP550P5C-S05IN from OP-2, he is facing the multiple problems such as internet connectivity, touch pad not working swiftly; there was a time lag of 25-30 seconds in speakers delivering sounds when made on and likewise many others.  It has further been averred that on the request of OP No.3 (Samsung Service Centre), he left the laptop for troubleshooting/refreshing for 3-4 hours but there was no improvement in its performance.   It has further been averred that he called the Senior Officials of Samsung at Nodia on their toll number but they kept him on hold for about 20-25 minutes but none of their Senior Officials could be connected to talk to him. It has further been averred that even after the replacement of the motherboard, there was no considerable improvement in the laptop.  The performance of the laptop was still slow and not as per the configuration. It has further been averred that the purpose of taking good configuration laptop for the use of his daughter has been completely defeated.  He also got extended the warranty period on 22.03.2014 for another year till 21.03.2015. It has further been averred that one part was broken and the same was changed on payment.  According to the complainant, there were severing problems in the series of the laptop, in question, and the company had already discontinued this series of the laptop in the market.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Initially OP No.2 appeared through Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Agent but subsequently it remained absence and as such it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.03.2015.
3.           In their joint written statement, OPs No.1 and 3 admitted the fact with regard to the purchase of the laptop in question.  It has been denied that the complainant has been facing multiple problems such as internet connectivity, touch pad not working swiftly or time lag.   It has been stated that the working of the laptop is not only dependent upon the configuration of the hardware but also upon the software installed in the laptop.    It has been admitted that the motherboard of the laptop has been replaced within the warranty period.   It has further been pleaded that as and when the complainant approached the Opposite Party for the repair of the laptop, in question, or with any defect thereof, prompt service has been provided and the defects have been removed forthwith. It has been pleaded that whole concept of the warranty is that in case there is any defect the same will be repaired as per the warranty terms and conditions, free of charge. Remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the contesting Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           The contention of the complainant is that despite purchasing the high configuration laptop worth Rs.59,000/-, the same is working very slowly from the date of its purchase and is giving various problems. He further submitted that even after changing of the mother board, the laptop is not working properly.
7.           On the contrary, the defence of the OPs No.1 and 3 is that there is no defect in the laptop and the working of the same is dependent not only upon the configuration of the hardware but also upon the software which have been loaded in the machine.     
8.           After going through the documents and the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the invoice dated 22.03.2013 vide which he purchased the laptop in question for Rs.59,000/-.  From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the complainant has purchased the laptop having high configuration i.e. i7 processor with 8gb Ram, I tb hard disc etc.  It is a factum on record that the said laptop is under one year warranty. It is also proved from the Samsung Smart Warranty placed at page 7 of the file that the extended warranty of the laptop, in question, is valid for the period from 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015.   It is proved from the job sheet dated 29.11.2013 at page 11 of the file that the laptop was handed over to the service center of the OP No.1 on 29.11.2013 with the problems of hanging, also speakers, WIFI is not working properly and the same was delivered to the complainant after changing hinges and switch TACT  on 05.12.2013.  It is further proved from the job sheet dated 01.10.2014 at page 12 that the complainant handed over the laptop in question to the service center of the OP No.1 on 01.10.2014 with the problems of slow processing and click buttons missing the same was delivered to the complainant after changing the mother board  on 01.10.2014.  It is further evident from the job sheet dated 06.08.2014 at page 13 that the complainant handed over the laptop in question to the service center of the OP No.1 on 06.08.2014 with the problems of laptop heating a lot and the same was delivered to the complainant after changing the heat sink fan-CPU; McLaren 15/17-QC-Ext., AL.  The complainant also placed on record a copy of e-mail dated 10.08.2013 written to the OP No.1 at page 14 of the file with the complaint that the performance of the laptop was getting deteriorating day by day. In the said e-mail, it was mentioned that earlier internet was getting disconnected and now it was not getting connected.
9.     We do not find any merit in the contention of the Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 that the laptop, in question, was working slowly on account of the software problems.  Obviously, if there was any software problems in the laptop, in question, then only the software was required to be upgraded and there was no need to replace the mother board and other parts of the laptop, in question, as is evident from the job sheets annexed with the complaint.  In our considered view when there was no problem in the laptop, there was no reason for the complainant or any consumer to get the laptop repaired by carrying out major repairs like change of mother board.  Needless to mention here that changing the mother board of a laptop is an important component/part, which amounts to major repair.  It appears that the OP-Company had changed it certainly on account of some serious/major defect, otherwise there was no reason to change the mother board of the laptop of the complainant.  
10.           Furthermore, the service engineers/mechanics of the Opposite Parties despite repeated efforts failed to diagnose the actual problem in the laptop in question which itself gives an impression that the laptop in question is suffering from some inherent major defect and the same cannot be rectified by effecting the repairs.  Needless to mention that the complainant had already given a long hand to the OPs to repair the laptop, in question, but they were not able to repair the same and ultimately the complainant has to file the instant complaint. In our considered view, the grievance of the complainant cannot be redressed by ordering the Opposite Parties to repair/replace the laptop in question.
11.     In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs jointly and severally are directed to take back their defective laptop,  in question, from the complainant and to refund to him Rs.59,000/- being the price of the laptop, in question, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
12.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount  (i.e. Rs.59,000/- and Rs.10,000/-) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
13.           Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned, after compliance.

Announced

24/04/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER