BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No :   02 of 2010

Date of Institution:   07.01.2010

Date of Decision  :   10.09.2010

Narendra Sharma s/o Mr.Ramesh Chand,C/o Mr.Omprakash, B-1/4416, Sham Nagar, Street No.7, Rajpura, Punjab, Pin-140401

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]          R.T.Outsourcing Services Limited, SCO 121-122-123, 3^rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2]          Contact System, 108, Sahyog Building, 58 Nehru Place, New Delhi Pin 110019

3]          Hawlett Packard India, Sales Private limited, 24 Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi, Banglore 560030

 .…..Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

Sh.Pritam Singh, Auth. Agent of OP No.1

Sh.Vipula Dhirmani, Adv. for OP No.3.

OP No.2 already exparte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This case has been filed by Sh.Narendra Sharma s/o Ramesh Chand, who is a student of Engineering. 

                The facts of the case are as under:-

1]             Being a student of Engineering, the complainant had bought a Laptop from OP No.2. Unfortunately, the Laptop turned out to be defective and kept giving problems. The complainant had to regularly take the Laptop to the Service Centre for rectification of defect.  Various problems were detected in the machine, like damaged speakers, defective push buttons, damaged buttons and caps lock problem etc.  Each time the student had to take the machine for repair to the Service Centre, he had to skip his classes besides paying for traveling expenses.  He had expected to make some earning by working online, which also was not possible.  To cut the story short, the Laptop was giving continuous problems and the complainant could not benefit adequately from its usage.

                He has thus filed the instant consumer complaint against the OPs and requested for a deserving claim in his favour keeping in view the harassment, frustration, study loss and expenses suffered by him.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3]             OP No.1 & 3 have filed separate reply whereas the summons sent to OP No.2 through courier were duly received. However, on the next date fixed for hearing after receipt of the PODs, none appeared on behalf of Op No.2.  Therefore, OP No.2 was proceeded exparte on 16.2.2010.

4]             In the reply filed by OP No.1, they have submitted that all the allegations submitted by the complainant in his letter to the District Forum are vague, false and baseless.  Further, they have submitted that the defective speakers were replaced and the laptop was returned to the complainant to his satisfaction.  Subsequently, each time the complainant visited the service centre with some issue; a fully functional laptop was delivered to the complainant, to his satisfaction.  It would be grossly unfair on the part of the complainant to allege any deficiency in service provided by OP No.1, and in the light of the above facts, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

5]             OP No.3 in its reply has denied every allegation made by the complainant.  They have submitted that the products manufactured by them are of good quality and the averments made at the unnumbered paragraphs of the complaint with regard to the defect in the laptop are all denied.  Further, OP No.2 is not an authorized dealer of OP No.3 and hence there is no privity of contract between OP No.2 & 3.  Hence OP No.3 is not responsible for any liability or assurance given by OP No.2 to the complainant in its independent capacity.

                OP No.3 further submits that they are customer friendly company, and if a customer has a genuine problem, they have no problem in redressing the same.  On verification, they have found that the complainant has lodged various complaints against the product at the Customer Care Centre and whenever any such complaint was lodged, they have properly redressed it.  There is no known issue with the laptop of this particular model nor is there any manufacturing defect in the product as alleged by the complainant.  In view of these submissions, there is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to any relief against them.  In view of the above, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

6]             We have heard the complainant, representative of OP No.1 and ld.Counsel for OP No.3 and have also perused the evidence/documents placed on record by the parties, OP No.2 already exparte.

7]             The complainant has not really enjoyed the laptop for which he has paid a handsome amount of money.  He has had to continuously visit the Service Centre of OP with one complaint or the other, occurring in the laptop and the same was returned to him after carrying out necessary repairs.  However, inspite of all repairs, problems in the laptop still continue to occur.  Repairing the laptop by the Ops from time to time does not mean that the laptop is not defective.  An electronic machine is not supposed to give continuous problems and such regular visits to the Service Centre for one technical fault or the other, occurring very frequently clearly shows that the machine is suffering from serious defect and needs to be replaced. 

8]             The complainant has filed the complaint well within the period of warranty and hence would be entitled to refund of the total amount paid by him for the laptop.  The contention of OP No.3 that OP No.2 is not an authorized dealer would not mean that the product is not genuine and OP No.2 is at fault in anyway.  OP No.1 is only the service provider and they have always provided adequate service whenever the complainant had visited them.   

9]             In view of the above, this complaint is allowed with the following directions:-

i)         OP No.3 who are the manufacturer of the laptop are directed to refund Rs.32,600/- to the complainant as invoice price of the laptop in question.

ii)        OP No.3 will pay Rs.5000/- top the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service.

As no legal notice was issued, therefore, there is no need to pass any order as to cost of litigation.

                The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount Rs.37,600/- along with interest @12% per annum, from the date of this order till its actual payment, to the complainant.

10]                    Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.         

Announced

10^th Sept., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”