BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.172 of 2018
Date of Instt. 20.04.2018
Date of Decision: 11.12.2019
Sanjeev Sharma s/o Sh. Sham Lal resident of 215/1, Hargobind Nagar, Near Reru Pind, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Embassey Heights, 6th floor, No.13, Margrath Road Next to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka-560025
2. Kalyan Computers through its Prop., 161, Bhai Dit Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Manish Mahajan, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
None for the OP No.1.
Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant Sanjeev Sharma, wherein alleged that he had purchased a Laptop make Acer from the OP No.2, vide Invoice No.T-4711 dated 12.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. Just after three months of its purchase, the above said Laptop started giving problem of touch and the complainant had approached the OP No.2 for the redressal of his grievances and the OP No.2 advised the complainant that he has to call to the service centre of the OP No.1 online. The complainant had called to the service centre on 20.02.2018 and lodged his complaint with the service centre, but the executive of the OP No.1 told the complainant that the Laptop in question had been manufactured in the year 2015 hence the guarantee/warranty of the same has been expired. The complainant has purchased the Laptop on 12.10.2017, hence the Laptop is well within the period of warranty. The complainant has lodged his grievances with the OPs many times, but the same was not redressed by them. The OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the Laptop in question and the OP No.2 is the seller of the product hence the liability of all the OPs is joint and several. That the non-functioning of the Laptop and non-providing of after sale service when the product is within the warranty period, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the Laptop of the complainant was not repaired/replaced by the OPs and whereby caused inconvenience, mental agony and harassment to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to exchange the above mentioned Laptop or to refund the price of the Laptop i.e. Rs.18,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 miserable failed to appear and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP No.2 duly served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further alleged that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the Forum. It is further averred that the complainant has dragged OPs No.2 into frivolous and vexatious litigation. It is further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to bring the complaint against the answering OP No.2 and further alleged that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.2 and even no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint, even there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the Laptop in question has been purchased by the complainant against a payment and further submitted that the warranty was valid and enforceable for the extended period till 11.10.2018. It is further alleged that the complainant has been adamant and non-cooperative to deliver/handover laptop to Service Center of OP No.1 to check up and ascertain the alleged defect and problem in the functioning of the Laptop. The service centre of the OP No.1 has all along been willing and ready and is still willing and ready to check up laptop to find out alleged defect and non-functioning of the laptop to rectify the problem to entire satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is directed to contact OP No.1 local authorized Service Center to deliver laptop for checkup and determine the defect and rectify the same. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. Replication not filed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP2/A and Ex.OP2/B and closed the evidence.
7. Later on, OP No.1 joined the proceedings, but only right to argue the case.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. Precisely, the allegation of the complainant is only that he purchased the Laptop on 12.10.2017 after making a payment of Rs.18,000/- against a valid bill/invoice and photostat copy of the Invoice is available on the file Ex.C-1 and further alleged that a defect was occurred in the said Laptop within a period of three months from the date of purchase and he approached the OP No.1 as well as service centre on 20.02.2018 and lodged his complaint despite that the Laptop was not repaired/replaced by the OPs and alleged that there is a deficiency in service.
10. No doubt, the manufacturer of the said Laptop i.e. OP No.1 is proceeded against exparte, whereas the complaint has been contested by the OP No.2 from whom the complainant has purchased the Laptop in question. OP No.2 categorically alleged and took a plea that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.2, but this plea of the OP No.2 is not sustainable because when the complainant purchased a Laptop from OP No.2, being a dealer of the manufacturing firm and allegedly some defect was occurred and then obviously the complainant is a consumer of OPs No.1 and 2, therefore, this plea of the OP No.2 is not acceptable.
11. Further, plea taken by OP No.2 is that the complainant never approached to service centre, if approached, then he has to deliver the Laptop to Service Centre for check-up just to ascertain the alleged defect and problem in then functioning of the Laptop. This version of the OP No.2 having some weightage because the complainant has made all oral allegations, the complainant alleged that he approached the said Service Centre on 20.02.2018, if virtually complainant approached, then he must have obtained a complaint number from the service centre or get a Job Sheet, where-from we can ascertain that the complainant had visited the Service Centre of OP No.1, but simply alleging that he approached the Service Centre, is not acceptable and some unknown employee of the OP No.1 stated to the complainant that the Laptop in question has been manufactured in the year 2015 is also not acceptable, if any employee of the OP No.1 told this fact to the complainant, then the complainant has to disclose the name of that employee. So, from all the above discussion, it comes out that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the file whether there is any inherent defect in the Laptop, which is not curable and in the absence of these type of evidence, we cannot accept that the Laptop of the complainant is having any manufacturing defect, if so, then the complainant is neither entitled for replacement or return of the price and even there is no effective evidence came on the file to establish that there is any deficiency on the part of the OPs. So, accordingly, we do not any merits in the complaint of the complainant, therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
11.12.2019 Member President
