Date of filing:- 25/09/2023.
Date of Order:-16/07/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 138 of 2023.
Akash Panda, aged about 21(twenty one) years S/o Rabindra Panda, R/o College Chowk, Barpali, Po/Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh, Occupation- Student. ..... .... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- Chief Executive Officer, Asus India Private Limited, 402, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri(West), Mumbai, State-Maharastra-400053.
- Managing Director, Reliance Digital Retail Limited, LGI, 5,6A, Forum, 6B & 7, Esplanade One Ln, Rasulgarh Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, State-Odisha-751010. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri R.Dash, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.Joshi, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri S.K.Patjoshi, Advocate with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.16/07/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a student of B.A.L.L.B at SOA National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar and for the study purpose has purchased one ASUS TUFF GAMING A15 Laptop of Model No. ASFA5061CB4800H/0005DA/ 16G/US bearing product Serial No. N8NRCX10T21935F. The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the company and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the retailer of Opposite Party No.1(one) and for the aforesaid Laptop the Complainant had paid ₹ 77,186.01/-(Rupees seventy seven thousand one hundred eighty six and one paise)only on Dt.21-12-2022. The Complainant had purchased the laptop for education and for preparation and submission of dissertation paper the Complainant took into use the above laptop for the first time on Dt.08-05-2023. After using the laptop the Complainant found problem in the sound system. The Complainant lodged complaint on 08-05-2023 and the service engineer of Opposite Party No.1(one) verified the laptop and found one screw inside the laptop which was manufacturing defect. After the complaint, the Service Engineer replaced the speaker of the laptop. The Complainant on further use found the sound system was noisy and all the inbuild Apps i.e. Microsoft word, Microsoft Power Point, Microsoft Excel, the licensed App of Microsoft Office Home and student have been disappeared. The Complainant again complained on Dt.17-05-2023 and the engineer attended him after a lengthy period on Dt.30-05-2023 and left the Complainant with assurance that he will contact higher officials of Opposite Party for the purpose. After 30-05-2023 the Opposite Parties have made no further communication. The Complainant served pleader's notice to the Opposite Parties on Dt.19-06-2023 but the Opposite Parties despite receiving notice remained silent.
Being harassed by the deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties this complainant filed complaint before this Commission praying that the Opposite Parties be directed to replace the laptop set with a new one having similar descriptions which shall be free from all defects or return the price of the laptop with interest and ₹ 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards physical and mental loss and the loss of academic career and ₹ 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards litigation expenses.
2) The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed its version and submitted that on Dt.08-05-2023, the Complainant reported an issue with the speaker of the alleged laptop with the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.1(one) after receipt of complaint arranged an onsite visit of Service Engineer at the Complainant's place to diagnose the laptop and provide the appropriate solution. The Service Engineer diagnosed the laptop of the Complainant and successfully resolved the issue by replacing the speaker of the alleged laptop. After replacing the speakers, the Complainant being satisfied with the services provided by the Opposite Party No.1(one) has collected his laptop on 10-05-2023 from the Service Engineer. On dt.15-05-2023 the Complainant once again reported an issue with speaker of the laptop and the Opposite Party No.1(one) arranged the visit of Service Engineer at the Complainant's place to diagnose but the Service Engineer did not find any issue with the Complainant's laptop with respect to the speakers. Therefore the complaint was closed and the laptop was handed over to the Complainant on Dt.30-05-2023. On Dt.29-08-2023, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1(one) alleging an issue with M.S. in the laptop and the Service Engineer and found call clear NTF(No Trouble Found). On Dt.09-09-2023 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) that M.S. Office not activated and the Service Engineer assigned by the Opposite Party No.1(one) found that M.S. Office was asking for the password. For the said the Opposite Party No.1(one) resolved the same. The Opposite Party No.1(one) further submitted that wherever the Complainant reported an issue with his laptop the same was addressed on high priority by the Service Engineer by visiting the Complainant's place. The Opposite Party No.1(one) shall not be held responsible for the act of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1(one) has a replacement policy of 7(seven) working days from the date of unit purchase, however if the unit is damaged by the customer then the range shall not be covered under the warranty and for repair of such unit is chargeable. The Opposite Party No.1(one) during warranty period has offered free service and as per the warranty terms the Complainant is not eligible for the replacement of the laptop. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one) the complaint to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.1(one).
3) The Case of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2(two) is only a retailer of electronics products of various brands throughout the country. The Complainant has lodged his complaint with Opposite Party No.1(one) directly, there is no cause of action against Opposite Party No.2(two). As the Opposite Party No.2(two) is only a retail seller, there lies no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2(two), the case to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2(two).
4) Perused the entire record along with oral arguments and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the product is defective or not ?
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1(one)
5) The Complainant on Dt.21-12-2022 has purchased one ASUS TUFF GAMING A15 Laptop of Model No. ASFA5061CB4800H/0005DA/16G/US from the Opposite Party No.2(two) and during the warranty period on Dt.08-05-2023 the Service Engineer of Opposite Party NO.1(one) verified and replaced the speaker. Further the ASUS product service from Dt. 10-05-2023, 30-05-2023, 30-08-2023 and 01-09-2023 itself reflects that problems occurred in the aforesaid laptop under the warranty period and hence it proves that the product supplied is defective one.
The law is well settled that if the product could not be repaired despite several attempts of repairs then it is a defective product.
Issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
6) It has been admitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the speakers of the laptop has been replaced by new one. Further the Complainant had alleged that the laptop is still not functioning well and for the same communicated to the Opposite Party on 17-05-2023 and the Opposite Party No.1(one) Service Engineer attended on 30-05-2023 examined the laptop and did not rectify the problem which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the seller and for the negligence of Opposite Party No.1(one), the Opposite Party No.2(two) can not be liable.
Issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3(three)
7) In Vinoo Bhagat Vrs General Motors (India) Ltd & Another, First Appeal No. 150/1998 decided on 30-01-2003, the Hon'ble Apex Consumer Commission held that “when manufacturer/dealer fails to rectify the defect despite given reasonable opportunities, then the order or direction to refund or replacement of product is correct”
The issue is answered accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed
As per supra discussion, the following order is passed.
O R D E R
8) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and dismissed on contest against Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to refund the price of laptop i.e. ₹ 77,186.01/-(Rupees seventy seven thousand one hundred eighty six and one paise)only with 9%(nine percent) interest per annum from the date of its purchase i.e 21-12-2022 till the date of this Order along with ₹ 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only towards compensation for deficiency in service and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation cost to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days of this order, failing which, the entire order shall carry 12% (twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
The Complainant is directed to return back the defective/alleged laptop to the Opposite Party No.1(one) immediately after receive the awarded amount from the Opposite Party No.1(one).
9) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.16/07/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
