BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 272 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 22.09.2015.
Date of Order: 25.04.2019.
Deepak son of Shri Dinesh Kumar, resident of House No.560, Gali No.1, Manbhawan Tailor, Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Registered office, Embassy Heights, 6th floor, No. 13, Magrath Road, next to Hasamt Hospital, Bangaluru (Karnatka) 560025 through its Executive Manager/authorized person.
2. Acer Reliable Technology, SCO No.147, HUDA Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Rohtak (Haryana) through its authorized person.
3. Hindustan Computer and Travels, 99 Baba Nagar, Opp. Chug Hospital, Meham Gate, Bhiwani (Hr.) – 127021 through its authorized person Sachin son of Shri Nirmal Singh, now residing at H. No.145, Indira Colony, City Station Road, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri R. N. Rohilla, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Mukesh Chauhan, Advocate for the OP No.1.
OP No. 2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of complainant’s case are that he has purchased a Laptop Model Acer E1-571, serial No.NXM09SI025243IEZFD10601 for Rs.36,500/- from OP No. 3 on 30.4.2013. It is alleged that after few time the laptop has become defective and complainant visited the OP No. 3, but the OP No. 3 asked the complainant to approach the OP No.2 being authorized service centre of Acer laptop. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the service centre and deposited the laptop in the month of September, 2013 and after replacing the key board the OP No. 2 returned the laptop on 19.9.2013. It is further alleged that the laptop again become defective and deposited with OP No. 2 on 11.1.2014 and OP No. 2 repaired the same and returned to complainant on 22.1.2014. It is further alleged that the laptop again become defective and the OP No. 2 was informed telephonically on 24.7.2015, but the OP No. 2 said that the laptop is not repairable. It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 had given 3 years warranty of the laptop, but the laptop was having some manufacturing defect, as the same was not working property from September, 2013 despite repaired by the OP No. 2 for two times. It is further alleged that complainant has requested many times on toll free no.1800116677 for the repair/replacement of the laptop, but the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and on 11.9.2015 the OPs refused to replace the same. It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 was requested many time to repair or replace the laptop in question, but to no effect. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed contested written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that the first complaint had been lodged by the complainant via case identification number 4028261 on 14.9.2013. It is further alleged that the laptop had been used by the complainant for 137 days or 1096 working hours assuming 8 hours per day, whereas the complainant mentioned in his complaint that “after a few time” the laptop started working improperly. It is further alleged that intention of complainant is to make a false allegation by not providing clear information as submitted by the OP and the fact was that in writing some keys were not working and there are various reasons for improper function of key board, although we were not sure that what caused the malfunction in key board, we could infer this was on account of misuse or negligent use of the laptop. It is further alleged that key board was replaced and laptop was given to complainant in working condition on 19.9.2013 and this fact was acknowledged by him in writing. It is further alleged that complainant must put strict proof to substantiate his allegations made by him in his complaint regarding complaint dated 11.1.2014, because as per record of answering OP the complainant has made further complaint on 6.7.2015 via case identification number 13409781 i.e. after use of laptop for further one year eight months from 14.9.2013. It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 is not an authorized seller of OP No. 1 and hence, the complainant is the consumer of only OP No. 3 and OP No. 1 does not have any direct relationship with the complainant and so he cannot be construed as a customer of OP No. 1. It is further alleged that the OPs never denied any service under the scope of warranty. It is further alleged that complainant has further lodged two complaints i.e. identification numbers 136898751 & 14554791 on 24.7.2015 and on 11.9.2015 respectively, but when we attempted to close both the complaints, the complainant was out of station and we were unable to repair the laptop. It is further alleged that the final complaint lodged by complainant vide case identification number 14571571 on 14.9.2015, but we were never given a chance by the complainant to fix the problem in the laptop. It is further alleged that nearly 2 years the laptop was used by the complainant, therefore, it is easy to comprehend that the laptop was never defective, but it became defective due to misuse, abusing and negligence of complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence or any test report of any other well known computer company to show that the computer had any defect. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 despite issuance of notice through registered post and OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 21.1.2016. No one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 3 despite issuance of notice through registered post and the OP No. 3 was also proceeded as exparte vide order dated 24.7.2017.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C3 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has placed on record documents Annexure 1, Annexure 2 and affidavit in support of its case and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs have not replaced the laptop of the complainant, whereas the same was within warranty period.
8. Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 also reiterated the contents of written statement. Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that as and when complainant approached for any complaint in the laptop in question, the same has been got repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. He further contended that as regards the last three complaints made by complainant, he never given a chance to the OPs for fixing the problem in the laptop.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record his duly sworn affidavit, copy of bill as annexure C1, copy of service report as annexure C2 and copy of service report as annexure C3. Moreover, in its reply OP No. 1 has admitted that complainant has further lodged complaints bearing identification numbers 136898751 & 14554791 on 24.7.2015 and on 11.9.2015 respectively and 14571571 on 14.9.2015. The plea taken by the OP No. 1 is that the when they attempted to close the complaints, the complainant was out of station and we were unable to repair the laptop, this plea is not tenable at all, because the OP No. 1 has not placed on record copy of any letter written to the complainant or any other documentary proof in this regard. So, it is clearly proved on record that the OP No. 1 has failed in repairing the laptop of the complainant despite making several complaints. It is also clear that the complainant requested the OPs to repair/replace the laptop, but the OPs have failed in redressing the complaint of the complainant, as is clear from the page no. 4, sub Paras of Para No. 5 of the written statement of OP No. 1. It is also admitted by the OP No. 1 in its written statement that the laptop in question become defective on 14.9.2013 for the first time. The OPs has no where rebut the stand taken by the complainant that three years warranty was given of the laptop in question. So, it is clear that the laptop in question started giving problem after about 5 months of its purchase. So, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs No.2 & 3 have even failed to appear before this Forum despite due service to rebut the case of the complainant. It appears that OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. OP No. 1 has further taken the plea that complainant has used the laptop in question for about 2 years. So, it is also considered by us that the complainant has used the Laptop in question for about a period of 2 years and after that the laptop in question has become defective. Therefore, in such circumstances, in our view, it would be appropriate, if the complainant is awarded Rs.9125/- being 25% cost of price of his laptop, as the defective laptop is in the possession of the complainant and used the same for about two years.
10. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with the directions to the OPs No. 1 & 2 as under: -
i. To pay Rs.9125/- (Nine thousand one hundred twenty five only) being 25% amount of the cost of laptop along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii. To pay Rs. 5500/- (Five thousand five hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship as well as litigation charges, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 & 2.
The complainant is directed to hand over the old laptop with its charger to the OPs No. 1 & 2. The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 25.04.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
