DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Jagtar Singh Sandhu, HCS, House No.334, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       HCL Infosystem Ltd., through its Manager Sales, 806 Siddharth, 1906 Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019.

2.       The Manager, HCL Infosystem Ltd., SCO No.66-67, 2^nd floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

ARGUED BY : Sh.A.D.S.Bal, Counsel for complainant.

                       Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel for OP No.1.

                       OP No.2 exparte. 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Jagtar Singh Sandhu, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against HCL Infosystem Ltd. & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased one laptop under buy-back scheme on 25.1.2012 from OP No.2 against invoice-cum-delivery challan – Annexure C-1. The photocopy of the warranty issued to him is Annexure C-2. The valuation of old laptop given in exchange was assessed as Rs.10,000/-. It has been contended that the laptop in question was not working properly right from the very beginning. The touch pad was not working properly, the cursor got struck at one place and could not be moved because of defective touch pad. The CD/DVD slot occasionally got jammed and the said laptop also started making noises and vibrating after switching on. The complainant immediately made a complaint to OP No.2 on 30.1.2012, which was received at serial No.162. The laptop was inspected and returned by the Service Engineer saying that the defect had been rectified. However, the laptop stopped working and another complaint was lodged vide No.199 dated 3.2.2012 recorded in the entry register. Again a cosmetic touch in the name of repair was given to the laptop and complainant was told that the defect had been rectified but it developed the same problem again. A complaint was made vide No.392 dated 9.3.2012 recorded in the entry register. Thereafter, the complainant had to go out for considerable long period and in the end of July, 2012 when he tried to operate the laptop, the same defects reoccurred regarding which another complaint vide No.1593 was made on 2.8.2012. The Service Engineer as well as in-charge of OP No.2 Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta assured the complainant that the defect had been rectified but it again developed the same problem. The complainant has alleged that when he had purchased a brand new laptop and it had started giving problem right from the day one, apparently there is some manufacturing defect in the same and it is required to be replaced by a new laptop. Even though an assurance was given by Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta to the complainant that he had written to OP No.1 and as and when the approval is received, the laptop would be replaced but the needful has not been done despite several personal visits made by the complainant to OP No.2. Seeing no other alternative, the complainant sent a legal notice to OPs on 28.9.2012 through registered post, copy of which is Annexure C-3. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, refund of Rs.31,000/- along with interest, apart from litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.2 did not appear despite service on 6.3.2013 and it was proceeded exparte.

3.                OP No.1 in its written reply has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the present complaint is false and frivolous and does not disclose any cause of action. It has been averred that as per record, the laptop in question was received by the replying OP for repair on the following dates and the same was received to the satisfaction of the complainant :-

It has been averred that OP No.1 did not receive any complaint in the laptop in question thereafter. It has been further stated that OP No.1 is always ready and willing to perform its part of obligation. It has been stated that there is no manufacturing defect of the laptop in question. It has been averred that in response to the legal notice dated 28.9.2012 the OP No.1 called upon the complainant to visit the service centre and if there was some problem the same be brought for inspection or diagnosed to rectify the said problem but the complainant turned down the said request and vehemently pressed to replace the laptop in question with a new one, which is against the warranty conditions.

4.                The complainant and OP No.1 led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have scrutinized the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and OP No.1.

6.                The pleadings of the complainant coupled with his affidavit and invoice – Annexure C-1 prove that the complainant purchased a laptop of HCL ME ICON L 1015 from HCL Infosystem Ltd., SCO No.66-67, 2^nd floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh – OP No.2 under buy back scheme for an amount of Rs.21,000/-. OP No.2 has not come forward to deny that the valuation of the old laptop given in exchange was assessed as Rs.10,000/-. The copy of warranty card – Annexure C-2 shows that the OPs gave a warranty of 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of delivery whichever is earlier. The date of delivery/installation in this case was 25.1.2012. The allegations in the complaint coupled with the admissions in the written statement of OP No.1 show that the laptop in question was firstly produced before OP No.2 just after 5 days of purchase i.e. 30.1.2012 with the problem of hanging. The admissions of OP No.1 in the written statement also show that the complaints of the laptop in question were received on 3.2.2012, 9.3.2012 and 2.8.2012 in respect of non working of touch panel and hanging. OP No.2 has not come forward to contest the case and rebut the allegations of the complainant that the touch pad of the laptop was not working properly, the cursor got struck at one place and could not be moved because of defective touch pad and further CD/DVD slot occasionally got jammed. The complainant has specifically alleged that the Service Engineer as well as Incharge of OP No.2 Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta assured him that defect had been rectified but it again developed the same problem. Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta also told the complainant that he had written to OP No.1 for replacement of the laptop. Since OP No.2 has not contested the case, the evidence of complainant against it has gone unrebutted. OP No.1 has also not filed any affidavit of Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta, Incharge as well as Service Engineer of OP No.2 to prove that the laptop of the complainant was not suffering from the defects mentioned by the complainant and that Sh.Om Jiwan Gupta did not tell the complainant that he had written to OP No.1 for replacement of the laptop. According to the complainant despite the endeavors made by the OPs four times laptop could not be made functional and it is still lying unused with him.

7.                It is significant to note that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion about the manufacturing defect in the laptop. So, it is difficult to hold that the laptop in question is having a manufacturing defect. But there is definite evidence to prove that the defects in the laptop mentioned in the complaint could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant by the Service Engineer of OP No.2 despite repeated visits of the complainant. OP No.2 has not dared even to contest this complaint. It is important to note that despite the service of legal notice dated 28.9.2012 – Annexure C-3 OPs did not bother to give any reply to the complainant. The contention of OP No.1 in its written reply that they called the complainant to visit the Service Centre and if there is any problem, the same be brought for inspection or diagnosed to rectify the said problem is not supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever. The evidence on record shows that the complainant has not been able to use the laptop in question effectively on account of the defects mentioned above. The act and conduct of the OPs have caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant and both the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)                 To repair the laptop of the complainant and deliver it back to him in perfect working order with a fresh warranty of one year.  

ii)                To make payment of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant for physical and mental harassment and deficiency in service.

iii)                To make payment of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

9.                This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.31,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 25.1.2012 till realization of the amount. They would also be liable to make payment of interest @9% p.a. on the amount of compensation of Rs.12,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, apart from litigation expenses, as mentioned above. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several.

10.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.