Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/407/2015

Sandeep Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director, HCL Infosystems Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Bansal

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/407/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	03/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sandeep Mittal son of Sh. Mangat Ram, resident of S-54 and Works at M/s Mittal Sales Center, Opposite Railway Station, Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (Punjab).

…....... Complainant.

Vs

 

1.   The Chairman and Managing Director, HCL Infosystems Limited, E-4, 5 and 6, Sector 11, Noida (U.P) India.

 

2.   The Incharge, HCL Infosystem Limited, SCO 66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

3.   Ms. Renu Chawla C/o HCL Infosystem Limited, SCO 66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

…........ Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MR. SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant purchased one HCL ME Tablet model Y1 on 11.06.2013 of OP-Company (HCL) from Chandigarh for Rs.12,000/- vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that the said Tablet never functioned properly as after only one week of its purchase, it started giving problems of automatic shutdown, problems of motion sensor, speaker and voice call etc. Accordingly, the same was deposited with the Service Centre on 21.05.2014 and 06.06.2014 for the aforesaid problematic issues, which the Opposite Parties failed to remove. When nothing happened, the Complainant sent numerous e-mails to the Opposite Parties, but those also did not yield the desired results. Eventually, after waiting for a considerable period of time, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.10.2014 to the Opposite Parties, but the same was not responded to. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have asserted that the device came to the Service Centre only twice; firstly, on 22.05.2014 and secondly, on 06.06.2014 and the problems were sorted out and necessary intimation qua the same was given to the Complainant. It was the decision of the Complainant not to collect the repaired device from the premises of the Opposite Party No.3 since June, 2014 although he had been categorically intimated that it stood repaired and was free of all/any defects, however, the Complainant insisted that it be delivered at his residential address at Nangal, Punjab and he would not come to collect it. The Complainant thereafter put the answering Opposite Parties on notice and thereafter, filed the present Complaint on 01.07.2015. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      Indisputably, the Tablet, in question, was purchased on 11.6.2013 and submitted for repairs twice on 22.5.2014 and 6.6.2014, which was just short of expiry of warranty period of one year. After detailed correspondence, the Opposite Parties responded on 15.9.2014 by saying as under:-

“We would like to inform you that we would be unable to process your request regarding the replacement of your HCL Tablet as the same has already been repaired and is readily available at our Service Centre for collection.”

 

 

          The main grievance of the Complainant is that he is staying in Nangal which is 120 Kms. away from Chandigarh Service Centre and desired that the HCL Tablet should be delivered to him at his residential address at Nangal as he would not come to collect it since he had already made five/six rounds to the office of the Opposite Parties to get the delivery of the subject Tablet. The Complainant also wanted an assurance from the Opposite Parties that the tablet would function properly. We can understand the predicament of an unsuspecting customer, who after spending a considerable amount on a product, got fed up of making numerous rounds to the Service Centre to get the delivery thereof, after repairs, especially when there is no body to come to his/her rescue.

 

8.      In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted view that since the repairs have been carried out to the Tablet and the same is readily available for collection at the Service Centre, the ends of justice would be met if the same be sent to the Complainant’s address at Nangal, Punjab, and the cost of dispatch thereof shall be borne by the Opposite Parties. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties are also directed to extend the warranty by such period for which the Tablet was lying with the Opposite Parties for repairs. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.12,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase, till its actual payment.

 

9.      The present Consumer Complaint stands disposed of accordingly in aforesaid terms.

 

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

Announced

03^rd February, 2016                                            

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER