Delhi

StateCommission

FA/446/2014

HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMARNATH & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:27.04.2018

 

FIRST APPEAL NO.446/2014

 

M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd.,

E-4, 5, 6 Noida-201301.

U.P.

 

Also at:-

          M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd.,

          S-10, Green Park Extn.,

          New Delhi.110016.                                   …. Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

1.      Shri Amarnath,

S/o. Late Shri Fagu,

R/o. B-11, Telecom Staff Quarter,

Vivek Vihar,

New Delhi-11—95.                                               … Respondent No.1

 

2.      M/s. S.S.D.N. Info Solutions,

Through its Prop./ Owner,

G-1 D/E, Madhuban Building,

55, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.                                               … Respondent No.2

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.      The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) against the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) in Complaint Case No.1071/2012 whereby the Ld. District Forum has allowed the complaint .

2.      Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had purchased one desktop for a sum of Rs.35,800/- on 12.04.2012 from respondent no. 2/ OP-3. Certain softwares were loaded by the respondent no.2 / OP-3 in the desktop. The allegation of the respondent no.1 / complainant is that when he had started it at home a blue dump appeared on the screen. A complaint was made on 16.04.2012 at serial no.14412008 which was attended by one Shri G.P. Singh. After seeing  the screen he had assured the respondent no.1/ complainant that it was related to software and after deleting certain softwares the blue dump was removed and the said engineer down loaded the window and charged Rs.500/-. It was alleged by the respondent no.1/  complainant that again after some time, same  problem arose. A complaint was made to the HCL Centre on 10.07.2012 but the complaint was attended by Shri G.P. Singh who deleted the software and again Rs.500/- were charged. Again respondent no.1/ complainant  made a complaint to the Manager, HCL, Noida Shri Rishi, who attended the complaint and informed that all the softwares loaded by the company had been deleted and recommended that setting mode had been disturbed and softwares were not be loaded and also  informed that it would not work as a new computer. It was further alleged that again on 30.11.2012 Shri G.P. Singh came and showed his inability to rectify the defects in the computer. Hence fed up with the recurring problems of computer, the respondent no.1 / complainant had filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum with prayer to refund the amount of the desktop alongwith compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3.      On notice the appellant/ OP-1 had appeared and filed its reply refuting the allegations made in the complaint. However in the written statement it was admitted that a complaint was received on 16.04.2012 which related to the window and was attended and rectified. It had further alleged that all the problems arose because of the poor knowledge of  the respondent no.1/ complainant about the operating system and wrong  pressing of keys. It  was denied that appellant / OP-1 had charged Rs.500/- for  down loading the window. It was denied that the CDs and DVD players were spoiled by the service engineer. It was further alleged that the system was found working properly on 23.11.2012 and on 30.11.2012 respondent no.1/ complainant did not allow the service engineer to attend the problem. It was further pleaded that the defective part of the system can only be replaced as per the warranty conditions and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

5.      The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence, passed an award in favour of the respondent no.1 / complainant and directed as under:-

“We direct the respondent company to pay to the complainant the cost of the computer i.e. Rs.35,800/-. The complainant shall return to the respondent the old computer. We further direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment caused and cost of litigation. If the respondent company fails to pay to the complainant the cost of the computer as mentioned above within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order the complainant shall be entitled for interest @9% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of this complaint till it is finally paid.”

6.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum appellant / OP-1 preferred  the present appeal.

7.      We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8.      There is no dispute between the parties about the purchase of the computer on 12.04.2012 and the first complaint in this case was made on 16.04.2012. It is also an admitted fact by the appellant / OP-1 that desktop was having window problem and as per the job sheet  no.64335 the original window was installed. It is also not denied that again on 10.07.2012 the window problem was reported and it was reinstalled. On the job sheet a receiving of Rs.500/- is also written in the column of description / action. This document goes against the appellant / OP-1, who has taken the plea that they have never charged any amount for rectifying the defect. It is also evident from the job sheet dated 23.11.2012 that there was a automatic restart problem in the computer and it was observed by the engineer of appellant / OP-1, that there was some software problem. In the job sheet of 30.11.2012 a problem of blue dump was reported and on the job sheet of 08.12.2012 the same problem including hardware failure was reported. All these job sheets were produced by the respondent no.1/ complainant  alongwith his affidavit before District Forum. After going through all these job sheets it is very clear that there was some inherent problem in the computer which the appellant / respondent no.1 failed to rectify. Moreover the computer was purchased in the month of April i.e. 12.04.2012 and started giving problems from 16.04.2012 itself, and thereafter continuously one or the another problem were occurring. All these lead towards some inherent manufacturing defect in the system. The failure of hard disk and repeated problems of window shows that the system was corrupt and the appellant / OP-1 failed to give the services as promised to the respondent no.1/ complainant and the poor complainant who is a farmer is suffering despite spending his hard earned money and is unable to use computer which is like a waste box to him . Thus, it is clear case of deficiency in service.

9.      In view of the above discussion, we find no illegality in the order of the Ld. District Forum. Appeal is dismissed.

10.    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. 

11. File be consigned to Record Room 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member