State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Major Navdeep Brar S/O Colonel Rajinder ... vs Compaq Computer Coy, on 14 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. 1200 of 2004
Date of Institution : 30.9.2004
Date of Decision : 14.7.2010
Major Navdeep Brar s/o Colonel Rajinder Brar, 17 R and O Flight, C/o 56
APO through Power of Attorney Sameer Gupta S/o Sh.Suresh Kumar Gupta
r/o 3917/2, Near C.I.A. Patiala.
.........Appellant
Versus
1. Compaq Computer Coy, 92 Industrial Suburb, 11 Stage
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore through its Manager.
2. HP, Banarsi Das Chandiwala Estate, Kalkajit New Delhi through its
Managing Director.
3. M/s VIKI Enterprises, SCF 7, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala, through
its Proprietor.
.........Respondent
Appeal against the order dated 18.8.2004
of District Consumer Forum, Patiala.
BEFORE
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
PRESENT For the appellant : None For respondent no.1&2 : Sh.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant had purchased a Computer Compaq Presario 3707 from M/s VIKI Enterprises, respondent no.3 on 1.11.2002 for a sum of Rs.54,000/-. It carried one year warranty. Respondent no.3 also assured about the best services after purchase.
2. It was further pleaded that Computer was defective. Its performance was not satisfactory. From the very first day, the CD Drive was not working properly. The appellant contacted respondent no.3. He was 2 Appeal 1200/2004 advised to use a lens cleaning CD. The appellant accordingly purchased a lens cleaning CD but even after its use, the problem persisted. 20 days after the purchase of the Computer, the entire system crashed. It was taken again to the shop of respondent no.3 who admitted the defect in the CD Drive and put an indent for the new CD Drive with the manufacturing company, respondent no.1. However it was replaced after a long wait i.e. after about one and a half month on 30.12.2002. Inspite of that, the defect in the CD Drive continued as it was making noise whenever an attempt was made to play it. The CD Drive was again replaced on 13.1.2003 but the defect still persisted and the appellant faced a lot of inconvenience.
3. It was further pleaded that the computer was taking 5-6 minutes to start up. The appellant had to re-install the Microsoft Office XP many times as the files got corrupted on their own. No reason was given by respondent no.3 about this defect. On 12.3.2003 when the defect was pointed out by the appellant to respondent no.3, he was told to bring back the computer on the shop of respondent no.3 for re-checking. It was so done but respondent no.3 failed to solve the problem.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant sent the letter dated 22.3.2003 to the manufacturing company, respondent o.1. The appellant was advised to contact the personnel manning the Compaq helpline. The complaint of the appellant was registered at Serial No.419259. The personnel at the helpline asked the appellant to contact respondent no.3 and deliver the computer but the problems continued even after removing the defects. The appellant again wrote letter dated 16.4.2003 to all the respondents.
5. It was further pleaded that on 16.4.2003, an Engineer of the respondents visited the house of the appellants and replaced the Hard Disc of the computer but the computer remained dysfunctional, working at a snail's 3 Appeal 1200/2004 pace as compared to other computers. The appellant again wrote a letter dated 17.4.2003 to respondents but he did not get satisfactory reply.
6. It was further pleaded that the appellant was transferred to southern part of the country in 2003 and he advised his Attorney to take up the matter with the respondents. The appellant was to return in November 2003 but his posting was further extended by one year. Hence the Attorney filed the complaint for replacement of the defective computer with a new one or in the alternative for the refund of the amount of Rs.54,000/- with compensation, interest and costs.
7. Respondent no.3 filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had purchased one Compaq computer from the shop of respondent no.3 on 1.11.2002. It carried warrantee of one year from the manufacturing company, respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. It was denied if respondent no.3 was to render any service as the appellant had purchased the Compaq Computer due to centralised service by the company itself.
8. It was further pleaded that the first complaint was received from the appellant on 30.12.2002. Accordingly the Engineer of respondent no.3 had checked the computer and the CD Drive was replaced after receiving the same from respondent. The computer was tested. It was working quite satisfactorily. It was duly acknowledged by the appellant.
9. It was further pleaded that on 16.4.2003, Engineer of respondents no.2 and 3 went to the house of the appellant and checked the computer thoroughly even by loading all the softwares on the other hard disc which was taken for testing only. The report was sent to respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.3 had received a copy of letter of respondent no.2 addressed to the appellant in which it was stated that there was no problem in the computer. Letter dated 17.4.2003 was not received from the appellant nor 4 Appeal 1200/2004 any assurance was given by respondent no.3 to the appellant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
10. Respondents no.1&2 were proceeded against ex-parte.
11. The appellant proved his affidavit, Ex.C-1 and documents Ex.C-2 to C-9. On the other hand, Kiran Kanta, Prop. of respondent no.3 proved her affidavit, Ex.R-1 and also proved documents Ex.R-2 to R-5.
12. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.8.2004.
13. Hence the appeal.
14. Respondents no.1&2 submitted written arguments and learned counsel for them prayed for dismissal of the complaint/appeal.
15. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
16. The admitted facts are that the appellant had purchased a Compaq Computer Presario 3707 and the allied apparatus from respondent no.3 on 1.11.2002. The appellant has also proved the Sale Invoice dated 1.11.2002 as Ex.C-2. This computer was manufactured by respondent no.1.
17. It is also admitted by respondent no.3 that the said Compaq Computer carried one year on site warrantee which was given by the manufacturing company, respondent no.1. The appellant was also assured of best services on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2.
18. Although the appellant has pleaded that the computer became defective immediately after its purchase and its performance was un- satisfactory and that he had lodged the complaint with respondent no.3 and that respondent no3 had advised the appellant to use lens cleaning CD but the appellant has not proved any document to that effect except his own affidavit. This version of the appellant cannot be believed particularly when he had not lodged any written complaint. Postal Receipt or the bill for the purchase of lens cleaning CD is also not proved.
5Appeal 1200/2004
19. It is pleaded by the appellant that the respondents had replaced the CD Drive on 30.12.2002. For that purpose, the appellant has proved the document (Spare Part Return Tag) dated 30.12.2002 as Ex.C-3. Respondent No.3 has also pleaded that the appellant had lodged the complaint on 30.12.2002. The Engineer of respondent no.3 checked the computer and on the request of the appellant, CD Drive was changed after it was received from respondent no.2. Respondents no.1 and 2 have also admitted in the written arguments filed by them that on 30.12.2002 the CD Drive was replaced and thereafter the computer was working well.
20. The appellant further pleads that even after the replacement of the CD Drive, the computer was not functioning properly and it was again replaced on 13.1.2003. Although in the written statement, respondent no.3 has denied the occurrence of 13.1.2003 but in her affidavit, Ex.R-1, admitted that the complaint was received from the appellant on 13.12.2003 (Infact it is 13.1.2003) about the working of CD Drive and the same was replaced on 18.11.2003 (infact it is 18.3.2003). The appellant has also proved the Job Card dated 13.1.2003 (Spare Part Return Tag) as Ex.C-4. This document also shows, therefore, that the Compaq Computer had developed defect on 13.1.2003 again and the CD Drive was replaced by respondent no.3. This document on the top also reveals the date as 16.1.2003 against the column "Section IB Spares Shipment Compaq Ship date and 17.1.2003 against the column Compaq received date.
21. Although respondent no.3 in the written statement has pleaded that after 30.12.2002, the appellant had lodged the complainant with respondent no.3 only on 16.4.2003, but in her own affidavit, Ex.R-1 (para 5), respondent no.3 has referred to complaint dated 13.12.2003 (actual date 13.1.2003) and acknowledgement dated 18.1.2003. The appellant has proved document (Service Tage No.IN00534951), Ex.C-4, in which dates 13.1.2003, 6 Appeal 1200/2004 16.1.2003 and 17.1.2003 are legible. The same Service Tage No. is also proved by respondent no.3 as Ex.R-2 in which dates 16.1.2003, 17.1.2003 and 18.3.2003 are legible. This clearly proved that the computer had developed defects and was serviced by respondent no.3 and prior to April 2003.
22. The appellant had again written letter to the manufacturing company, respondent no.1 and to respondent no.3 on 22.3.2003, Ex.C-5, pointing out the defects in the Compaq Computer in which it is written that on 12.3.2003, the appellant had been told to deliver the computer at the shop for checking. He also pleaded that as an Army Officer it was not possible for him to get his computer repaired all the time and for shuttling in between his house and the shop of the dealer.
23. Respondent no.3 has also placed on the file the Spare Part Return Tag (Service Tage No.IN00468536), Ex.R-3, according to which the date and time of service event completion is given as 1.4.2003. It means, therefore, that the computer had developed some defects which were repaired by respondent no.3 on 1.4.2004. It corroborates the version of the appellant.
24. Thereafter he wrote letter dated 15.4.2003, Ex.C-6 to all the respondents pointing out the defects in the computer.
25. The appellant has further pleaded that on 16.4.2003 the Engineer of the respondents visited the house of the appellant on 16.4.2003 and replaced the hard disc of the computer. The appellant has proved the Service Engineer Report dated 16.4.2003 as Ex.C-7. Respondents No.1 and 2 have also admitted in the written arguments that the Engineer of respondents no.2 and 3 had gone to the house of the appellant on 16.4.2003 and he reported that the computer was in good working condition. However the report dated 16.4.2003 (Ex.C-7) reveals that hard disc was replaced and thereafter it started working properly. Respondent no.3 has also placed on the 7 Appeal 1200/2004 file Service Engineer Report dated 16.4.2003 as Ex.R-4. Respondent no.3 also placed on the file the letter dated 17.4.2004 as Ex.R-5 according to which the computer was found working properly.
26. Respondents no.1 and 2 in their written arguments had taken the plea that the computer was working properly as per the Service Engineer Report dated 16.4.2003 but the appellant had still written that he was not satisfied with part by part replacement of the computer. They have also admitted that the appellant had written another letter dated 17.8.2003 that the computer was working very slowly.
27. However the main argument of respondents no.1 and 2 was that complaints of appellant were attended from time to time and therefore the replacement of the entire computer was not justified as prayed by the appellant.
28. The bare reading of all this documentary evidence clearly proves that the computer purchased by the appellant from respondent no.3 which was manufactured by respondent no.1 became defective very often within the warrantee period of one year. It was taken by the appellant to the shop of respondent no.3 and he had made number of complaints time and again. The said computer purchased by him on 1.11.2002 and on 30.8.2003 i.e. within the warrantee period, the appellant had to make a lot of complaints to the respondents and even had to take the computer to the shop of respondent no.3 for repairs so many times. Sincere there were defects, the respondents sometimes changed the CD Drive or the Hard Disc but the computer failed to render proper service. Rather it caused lot of inconvenience, mental tension and physical harassment to the appellant besides financial loss for taking the computer to the shop of respondent no.3.
29. Although the appellant is not entitled for replacement of computer purchased by him for a sum of Rs.54,000/- but he is certainly 8 Appeal 1200/2004 entitled to compensation for all the sufferings undergone by him in the process of getting the computer repaired.
30. Accordingly this appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is held entitled to Rs.20,000/- as compensation besides an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs which shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
31. The arguments in this case were heard on 9.7.2010 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
32. The appeal could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER July 14, 2010 vr/-
9Appeal 1200/2004