BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.



Consumer Complaint No: 208/2007

Date of presentation: 10.07.2007

Date of decision: 10.03.2009



****************

1. Smt. Smita Negi Wife of Shr Prem Singh Negi, Resident of Dhariti Cottage, Lower Phagli, Shimla-4.



2. Shri prem Singh negi son of Shri Devi Singh Negi,

Resident of Dhariti Cottage, Lower Phagli, Shimla-4.



… Complainants

Versus



1. Shri Jayant Upadhyay son of Shri H.D. Upadhyay, Proprietor M/S E-Line, Hans Kutir, Khalini, Shimla, H.P.



2. Shri Rajiv Sharma, alleged agent E-Line, Hans Kutir, Khalini, Shimla, H.P.



3. Hewlett Packered India Limited,

Tower D 6th Floor, GB Park, Mehroli, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Manager.



…Opposite Parties

Coram



Shri Pritam Singh (District Judge) President.

Mr. Charanjit Singh, Member (Male)

………………………………………………………………………..



For the complainant: Ms. Bhawana Dutta, Advocate



For the Opposite Party

No.1: Mr. Haminder Chandel, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party

No.2 & 3: Exparte.



O R D E R:

Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants purchased Compaq laptop bearing Model No.2254AU/AMD/1.8/512/60/1.5”/DVDRW/XP from the OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 30.03.2006 for a sum of Rs.50,500/-. That the aforesaid laptop from the very beginning did not work properly as there was some major defect in it which was later on discovered as manufacturing defect. That the complainants brought the said defect to the notice of the OPs, but despite this the defect developed in the laptop was not rectified. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OPs.

2. The OP No.1 while filing reply admitted that the laptop in question was purchased by the complainants from him. But, alleged that it was specifically told to complainants at the time of selling the aforesaid laptop that in case of any defect within warranty period, it was to be rectified by the service provider. That the laptop was sold to the complainants in the same condition as it was received from the company and there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. The OPs No.2 in reply almost took same stand as taken by OP No.1 whereas the OP No. 3 did not prefer to contest the present complaint and proceeded exparte on 24.03.2008. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. Undisputedly, the laptop in question was purchased by the complainants from the OP No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.50,500/- as is evident from the copy of bill Annexure A-1 relied upon by the complainant. According to the complainant, this laptop from the very beginning did not work properly as there was some major defect in it which was later on discovered as manufacturing defect. That he brought this defect to the notice of the OPs No.1 & 2 who assured them that the engineer would be deputed who will attend the complaint properly and the defect so developed in the laptop would be rectified. But despite this the defect developed in the aforesaid laptop being manufacturing one was not rectified.

5. In this connection, it may be stated that as per the direction of this Forum the laptop in question was brought by the OP No.2 and was handed over to the OP No.1 before this Forum who was directed to get defect in the laptop examined from the authorized dealer of the Compaq company and to submit the report, as is evident from the zimni order dated 03.10.2007. But, thereafter, the OP No.1 neither returned the laptop to complainants, nor removed the defect by getting it examined from authorized dealer as per direction and since then undisputedly the laptop aforesaid is lying with the OP No.1.

6. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 Mr. Haminder Chandel, Advocate, however, submitted before us that as this is a manufacturing defect in the laptop, therefore, the OP No.3-Company who manufactures these laptop in bulk is only liable either to replace the laptop or to refund its cost to the complainant. Contention considered. But it may be stated that the aforesaid laptop was undisputedly purchased by the complainants from the OP No.1 vide bill Annexure A-1 and at that time the OP No.1 did not disclose to the complainants that they are only supplier of laptop which in bulk, are manufactured by the OP No.3-Company. The OP No.3 was later on arrayed as co-OPs in the present complaint. But, the OP No.3 did not choose to contest the present complaint and was ordered to be heard exparte on 24.03.2008. Therefore, adverse inference can be safely drawn against the OP No.3. However, in the circumstances of the case, the OP No.1 who is supplier and seller of the laptop aforesaid is equally liable with the OP No.3 for selling defective laptop to the complainants as he charged the entire sale consideration from complainants.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we hold both the complainants entitled to refund of the cost of laptop along with reasonable damages payable by the OPs No.1 & 3.

8. As a sequel of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs No.1 & 3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the laptop amounting to Rs.50,500/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 10.07.2007 till making full payment of the aforesaid amount. The Ops No.1 & 3 are also held jointly and severally liable to [ay just and reasonable damages of Rs.3,000/- to the complainants for causing them mental agony and harassment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. This order shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 3 jointly and severally within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 10th day of March, 2009.



(Pritam Singh)

President.





NMehta) (Charanjit Singh)

Member.