Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/644/2014

Shambhu Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL Infosystems LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sumit Narang

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/644/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	24/09/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	30/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Shambhu Kumar s/o Maheshwar Sharma, R/o H.No.17, 3^rd Floor, Parvati Enclave, Baltana, Mohali.

……………Complainant

Vs

 

1.   H.C.L. Infosystems Limited, SCO 66-67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2.   Creative Sales, SCO 46, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

……………Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Sumit Narang, Counsel for Complainant.

            Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

           

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant, had purchased one HCL Desktop (Model AD4F0001) from the Opposite Party No.1, on 20.02.2014, for Rs.27,500/-, vide invoice Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that within few days of its purchase, the CD player of the aforesaid Desktop started hanging, regarding which a Complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party No.1 (HCL Service Centre) on 3.3.2014, and the CD player was changed. After a few days, again, it started giving same problem and was not working properly. Accordingly, Complaints were lodged with the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.3.2014 & 17.5.2014 and thereafter, the CD player was repaired. It has been further alleged that later on, the Windows software of the Desktop started troubling and stopped working, regarding which Complaint was made on 23.6.2014, but no one could come to resolve the problem. The Complainant even wrote a number of e-mails to the Opposite Parties, explaining the problems faced by him right from the very beginning, but no reply was received (Annexure C-2 to C-5). After losing all hopes, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 12.02.2015.

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

 

5.      A perusal of the file reveals that the Complainant purchased one HCL Desktop vide Bill/Cash Memo Annexure C-1 for Rs.27,500/- on 20.02.2014. As per Annexure C-2, an e-mail dated 02.09.2014, the CD player of the newly purchased Desktop got defective within one month of its purchase and the same was changed on 3.3.2014. But, as per the case of the Complainant, the Desktop, in question, again got defective, within few days, and after repeated reminders it was repaired only in the month of May, 2014. Learned Counsel for the Complainant has contended that again, the Windows software of the Desktop got corrupted and the Complaint was made on 23.6.2014, but the defect could not be resolved by the Opposite Parties till date.  

 

6.      It is evident from various e-mails (Annexure C-2 to C-5) that even after various requests and repeated reminders, the Opposite Parties did not do any effort to rectify the defect in the Desktop in question.

 

7.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

8.      We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to satisfy the Complainant by getting the Desktop in question repaired in a perfect manner, but they have failed. Therefore, non-providing of services to the Complainant, non-responding to the e-mail requests and reminders, despite lodging various Complaints clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

9.      Evidently, the Complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new Desktop to facilitate himself, but not for lodging the Complaints to the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice, in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. We feel that only after getting exhausted of remedies available to him, the Complainant took a decision for filing the present Complaint. 

 

10.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.27,500/- being the invoice price of the HCL Desktop and take back the defective Desktop, from the Complainant, at their expense. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,500/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation;

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from paying costs of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.

 

12.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th March, 2015                                      

 

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER