Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/187

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Microzone Computers - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        187       

Date of Institution :   05.07.2016

Date of Decision :      07.02.2017

Manjit Singh aged about 28 years s/o Sh Mansa Singh r/o Adarsh Nagar, Street No.02, Jaitu Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Microzone Computers, SCO-9, 1^st Floor, Gole Market, Bathinda through its Proprietor/partner/Authorized Person.

2. Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Khasra No.2393/1, First Floor, Upside Dominos Pizza, 100 Feet Road, Near Ghode Wala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

3. HP (Hewlett Packard) India GF, Global Business OPs Pvt Ltd. NO.66/2, Ward No. 83, Bagmane Tech-park, 7^th Floor, A wind Embassy Prime, Raman Nagar, Bangaluru Karnataka-560093, through its Managing Director/CO/Authorized Person.

4. Satyam Computers, Authorized Dealer/Distributor of H P, Opposite Axis Bank ATM near Doctor Singla Eye Hospital, Fouji Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Person.

5. Hewlett Packard India Sales Ltd (SAU) 24 Road Adugodi Bangalore 560030 Karnataka.

....OPs

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-3 and 5,

              OP-1, 2 & 4 Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective laptop with new one and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.80,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.17,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Computer Laptop from OP-1 on 30.08.2013 for earning his livelihood and at the time of purchase, OP-1 assured complainant of its good quality and guarantee and warrantee for three years, but even after some time of its purchase, the laptop started giving problem of heating and hanging and also stopped working. Complainant lodged complaint with OPs through their service centre OP-3, but despite several complaints made by complainant, OPs did not remove the defect from laptop and due to non functioning of his laptop, complainant has suffered great loss in business. He also visited office of Op-4 and OPs-1 to 3, but all in vain. Complainant again visited the office of OP-2 and saw that his laptop was still lying there and they put off the matter on one pretext or the another and did not repair the same. Complainant came to know that there is some manufacturing defect in his laptop and it is not repairable and he requested them to replace the same as it was still under warranty, but  they refused to do so. Repeated requests made by complainant for replacement of laptop bore no fruit. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the said laptop and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.17,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard         to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.07.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                               On receipt of the notice, OP-3 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part as answering OP is neither the manufacturer of the laptop in question nor the Service Provider and as such, OP-3 is not responsible for the claims of complainant. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as OP-3 does not carry its business at Faridkot nor does it have any branch office in this district and thus, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present matter. Complaint is filed by complainant with ulterior motive and it is based on false, vexatious and wrong allegations and is thus, liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that OP-3 has nothing to do with the manufacturing activities of product in question and even complainant is not their consumer and therefore, present complaint is not maintainable against answering OP. It is further reiterated that OP-3 is not the manufacturer or service provider for laptop in questions and they have not caused any grievance to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Allegations regarding relief sought too are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint against OP-3.

5                             OP-5 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is an abuse of process of law and complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and present complaint is filed on false, baseless and vague allegations. Moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and even there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. It is asserted that laptop purchased by complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, consumers are using the product and complainant also purchased the same after being satisfied with the conditions of same and its performance. Moreover, products manufactured by answering OP are  put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the Country Quality Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market and every product of answering Op is certified by International Standard for quality systems for all the computer and related peripheral companies. It is further averred that complainant purchased the said laptop on 30.08.2013 and used the same for about 6 months and till reporting the first issue on 7.03.2014, proves that laptop in question had no manufacturing defects as if there was any manufacturing defect in said laptop, it would not have worked properly for six months from the date of its purchase and issues reported thereafter and that the jobs carried out on the laptop in question for the issues reported, are required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive wear and tear.  As per record of OPs, for complaints lodged to Authorized Service Centre of OPs, the issues reported in the laptop are resolved as per terms of warranty. It is further asserted that against complaint id 4774673806, reported for issues in Hard Disk Drive, the service team of  answering OP have diagnosed the laptop and requested complainant to provide recovery CD to install the operating system to resolve the reported defect, but complainant refused to provide recovery CD and filed the present complaint and suppressed the material facts. It is asserted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and no cause of action arises against OPs. It is averred that complainant has filed the present complaint on false and baseless allegation and there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, on merits, OP-5 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and asserted that all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and fabricated and no financial loss or inconvenience is caused to him. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

 6                                 Notice containing copy of complaint and relevant documents issued to OP-1, 2 and 4 did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. On date fixed nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1, 2 and 4 either in person or through counsel. It is presumed that OP-1, 2  and 4 had sufficient notice of complaint, but they did not come present in the Forum intentionally, therefore, OP-1, 2 and 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.09.2016 and 6.12.2016 respectively.

7                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 19 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-3 and 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Drushya Sridhar as Ex OP-3/1, affidavit of Samarendra Nayak as Ex OP-5/1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3 and 5.

9                                           We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                 Ld Counsel for complainant has vehementally argued that complainant purchased a Computer Laptop from OP-1 on 30.08.2013 for earning his livelihood and at the time of purchase, OP-1 assured complainant of its good quality and guarantee and warrantee for three years, but even after some time of its purchase, the laptop started giving problem of heating and hanging and also stopped working. Complainant lodged complaint with OPs through their service centre OP-3, and also paid several visits to the office of OPs but despite several complaints made by complainant, OPs did not remove the defect from laptop and due to non functioning of his laptop, complainant has suffered great loss in business. There is some manufacturing defect in laptop of complainant and it is not repairable and he requested them to replace the same as it was still under warranty, but they refused to do so.  All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for directing OPs to replace the said laptop alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

11                                      To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP-3 argued before the Forum that complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is filed on false and vague grounds. It is asserted that complaint is not maintainable as it is false and frivolous and there is no deficiency in service on their part  as OP-3 is neither the manufacturer of the laptop in question nor the Service Provider and as such, OP-3 is not responsible for the claims of complainant. It is averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as OP-3 does not carry its business at Faridkot nor does it have any branch office in this district and thus, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present matter. Complaint is filed by complainant with ulterior motive and it is based on false, vexatious and wrong allegations and is thus, liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that OP-3 has nothing to do with the manufacturing activities of product in question and even complainant is not their consumer and therefore, present complaint is not maintainable against answering OP. It is further reiterated that OP-3 is not the manufacturer or service provider for laptop in questions and they have not caused any grievance to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Allegations regarding relief sought too are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint against OP-3.

12                                            Ld Counsel for OP-5 argued that present complaint filed by complainant is an abuse of process of law as complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and it is filed on false, baseless and vague allegations. Moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and even there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. It is asserted that laptop purchased by complainant is a well established product in the market and over a period of years, consumers are using the product and complainant also purchased the same after being satisfied with the conditions of same and its performance. Moreover, products manufactured by OP-5 are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and tests by the Country Quality Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market and every product of OPs is certified by International Standard for quality systems for all the computer and related peripheral companies. It is further averred that complainant purchased the said laptop on 30.08.2013 and used the same for about 6 months and till reporting the first issue on 7.03.2014, proves that laptop in question had no manufacturing defects as if there was any manufacturing defect in said laptop, it would not have worked properly for six months from the date of its purchase and issues reported thereafter and that the jobs carried out on the laptop in question for the issues reported, are required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive wear and tear.  As per record of OPs, for complaints lodged to Authorized Service Centre of OPs, the issues reported in  the laptop are resolved as per terms of warranty. It is further asserted that against complaint id 4774673806, reported for issues in Hard Disk Drive, the service team of  answering OP have diagnosed the laptop and requested complainant to provide recovery CD to install the operating system to resolve the reported defect, but complainant refused to provide recovery CD and filed the present complaint and suppressed the material facts. It is asserted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and no cause of action arises against OPs. It is averred that complainant has filed the present complaint on false and baseless allegation and there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-5 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and asserted that all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and fabricated and no financial loss or inconvenience is caused to him and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

13                                                From the careful perusal of record and documents placed on file, it is observed that complainant purchased a laptop from OPs, which started giving trouble after some time of its use. Repeated requests made by complainant to remove the defect bore no fruit as OPs did not repaired the laptop in question upto the satisfaction of complainant. In reply OP-5 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted that complainant lodged complaints regarding defect in              said laptop. Plea taken by them that complainant did not provide recovery CD is of no help to them as from the perusal of documents Service Call Reports Ex C-5 and 6 and Ex C-11 to 19 it is clear that performance of laptop is slow and has multiple issues regarding its functioning. Copies of electronic mails Ex C-7 to 10 sent by OPs to complainant clearly reveal the grievance of complainant that laptop supplied by OPs has some defect, which is not removed or repaired by OPs. There does not remain an iota of doubt that laptop purchased by complainant from OPs has some defect and action of OPs in not redressing his grievance by providing requisite services amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and complainant has suffered great harassment due to this act of OPs.

14                   In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-5 is directed to replace the laptop in question with new one of same model.OP-5 is further directed to pay Rs.2000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Complaint against OP-1 to 4 stands hereby dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 7.02.2017

Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)