DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 6.1.2016
Decided on: 31.5.2017
Abhinav Garg son of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Garg r/o H.No.4, Lane No.4, Modi Mil Colony, Nabha, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Vikki Computech Pvt Ltd. SCF No.7, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala, through its Prop.
2. Aforeserve (Service Centre) through its Service Manager, Second Floor, Ashirwad Complex, Behind Gopal Sweets, Patiala.
3. Hewlett Packard(HP), Head Office: 3rd Floor, Khanija Bhawan 49, Race Course Road, Sampanji Rama Nagar, Bangloro ( Karnatka), 560001, through its M.D.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Parties No.2&3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
Sh. Abhiunav Garg, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To remove the inherent defect from the Laptop or in lieu thereof change the same with new one of the same description and cost;
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 14.4.2013, he purchased a Laptop Model HP Envy M6 1103TXNBPC, from OP no.1, for an amount of Rs.54,498/- alongwith accessories and paid a total sum of Rs.66,600/-.It is averred that at the time of purchase of the Laptop, OP no.3 had floated a scheme for an extended warranty of two years more, on payment of Rs.1499/- within a week. Accordingly, Vide DD No.046175 dated 17.4.2013, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1499/- in favour of Solution Integral Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. for extended warranty. The warranty of the Laptop was extended up to 5.4.2016. It is averred that the said Laptop started giving problem from its initial stages and all the times, the complainant had to call the service centre i.e. OP no.2, for the rectification of the defect but all the times the engineer of OP no.2 did minor jobs and could not remove the problems regarding display panel and noise of sparking of the Laptop. Vide e-mail dated 6.10.2015, the request for the removal of the defect from display panel was rejected, on the ground that the defective part did not belong to unit supplied(CT). He got issued legal notice dated 17.12.2015 upon OPs no.1to3 but the OPs failed to pay any heed to his request. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part for which the complainant is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.2&3 only who despite service failed to come present and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence, affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C21 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the laptop from OP no.1. Ex.C5 is the receipt of Rs.1499/- which the complainant paid towards extended warranty of the Laptop, whereby the laptop of the complainant was within warranty till 5.4.2016. Ex.C-3, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-15 & Ex.C-16 are the service call reports. The said laptop started giving problem from its initial stage and the complainant had to call service centre i.e. OP no.2 for the rectification of the defect but all the times the engineer of OP no.2 did minor jobs but could not rectify the problem regarding display panel and noise of sparking coming out of the laptop. On6.10.2015, the complainant sent a request through an e-mail for the removal of the defect from Display Panel, which was out rightly rejected by the OP on the ground that the defective part did not belong to Unit supplied (CT).After spending a huge sum of Rs.60,600/-, the complainant could not use his laptop as such he underwent a lot of harassment. The problem occurred in the laptop during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
7. As an upshot of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.2&3 to rectify the defect in the Laptop without charging any amount from the complainant, since the laptop was within warranty. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.Order be complied by OPs no.2&3 within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 31.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
