Order No. 14 dt. 30/07/2019
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a HP laptop with inbuilt Compaq core i-5-3230M/4GB/1TB/1GRPH/W8/156/PAVILION/G6-2-2320TV vide invoice no. SIRPL/51626/12-13 on 14/03/2013 from Supreme Info Retails Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently an one year warranty was provided in respect of the said laptop vide warranty Memo no. 5536. It is stated by the complainant that suddenly the said laptop of the complainant stopped functioning in the month of December,2014 and complainant deposited the same to the o.p. no.1 for repairing purpose. It is further stated by the complainant that o.p. no.1 charged an amount of Rs.9,000/- for replacement of mother board and processor of the said laptop which was paid by the complainant vide invoice no. 7779 on 05/12/2014 and another amount of Rs.1,500/- was paid vide invoice no. 8581 dated 02/02/2015 for change of F-L cable. After passing of 4/5 months, the complainant noticed that the said laptop had became slower and to verifying its device specification he came to know that o.p. no.1 installed i-3 processor instead of his previous i-5 processor which caused slowing down the laptop. Immediately after knowing the said fact the complainant contacted with the o.p. no.1 and requested them to install the original mother board and processor of the laptop in question and the complainant deposited the same on 19/03/2016 vide Goods Receipt Memo to the o.p. no.1 endorsed with the remark “Received only laptop without SD Card”. Therefore, on several occasions the complainant requested the o.p. no.1 to install the i-5 processor into his said laptop but all were in vain for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps to repair the laptop in its original configuration and to return the repairing charge of Rs.10,500/- to the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.
On prayer for Ld. Advocate for the complainant, o.p. no.2 was expunged from the cause title as he was not a necessary party in this case. Hence the o.p. no.1 is only o.p. in this case and o.p. contested this case by filing w/v, stating that in the month of December,2014 the complainant deposited his HP laptop and after examining the same it was found that the mother board was required to be replaced and o.p. stated the complainant that the (i-5) same was not available at the time due to that reason the o.p. with the consent of the complainant installed the i-3 mother board and handed over the same to the complainant after proper checking and in smooth running condition. It is further stated by the o.p. that after passing of two months from the said incident the complainant came to the service centre of the o.p. with the said laptop and after examination it was found that the F/L cable of the laptop was not functioning properly and after paying the required charges to the o.p. the complainant received the same but at that time he did not raise any objection regarding the replacement of i-5 processor. It is further stated by the o.p. that after a lapse of 15 months the complainant again came to the o.p. with the laptop in question which has been fell down and was in a broken condition on request of the complainant o.p. opened the internal part and found that the mother board was badly water damaged and in broken condition. Subsequently the o.p. stated the said condition of the laptop to the complainant and also stated that o repair the same and to install i-5 mother board Rs.5,000/- approximately was required to be paid by the complainant but the complainant demanded return of his laptop with a genuine i-5 replacement without paying any cost. Thereafter, the o.p. has agreed to repair / replacement of the said laptop without receiving any charge from the complainant and as such they have no deficiency in service. Accordingly, the o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Complainant and o.p. adduced evidence in affidavit.
Points for determination
- Whether the complainant is consumer under the o.p.?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Admittedly the complainant received his laptop after required replacement of parts by paying the repairing charge of Rs.9,000/- to the o.p. on 05/12/2014. Thus the complaint has become the consumer under the o.p. as per Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. act.
The complainant has alleged that the o.p. did not repair the said laptop properly. Since the o.p. removed i-5 processor and mother board from his laptop, it was malfunctioning. The complainant also stated that the laptop again developed defect after first time repair on 05/12/2014 and he again deposited the said laptop to the o.p. on 02/02/2015. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the o.p. did not repair the laptop properly for which he prayed for refund of the repairing charges. It appears from the documents in record that after first instance of repair of the laptop the complainant ran the same a considerable span of time even after the second instance of repair he got opportunity to run the laptop for a considerable span of time from 02/02/2015 to 19/03/2016 . Had the laptop not been repaired properly the complainant would have not got the opportunity to turn it for that span of time. Hence o.p. is not liable to refund the repairing charges.
The specific allegation made by the complainant that the o.p. installed i-3 processor and mother board instead of i-5 processor and mother board, the o.p. also admitted the said fact and stated that with the consent of the complainant he had done it. However, the o.p. fails to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate such averment. In such view of the matter we are of opinion that there is gross deficiency in providing service on the part of the o.p. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and litigation cost.
All points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the CC/277/2018 is allowed in part on contest against o.p. with cost. O.p. is directed to repair the laptop in question in running condition with i-5 processor and mother board and o.p. is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand ) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
