Delhi

East Delhi

cc/258/2013

SATISH KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ACER INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                           Consumer complaint no.        258 /2013

                                                                           Date of Institution                 26/03/2013

                                                                           Order Reserved on               19/02/2018

                                                                           Date of Order                        20/02/2018  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Satish Kumar, adult   

s/o- Late Sh. Mohan Lal

R-64, Ramesh Park    

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Acer India  Ltd.

13, 6^th Floor, Embassy Heights,

Magrath Road, Nr Hosmat Hospital

Bangaluru, 560025

 

2-M/s Rskrish Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.     

DA 18, opp. Metro Pillar 51,

Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar,110092………….……….Opponents

 

Complainant ……………in Person

Opponent………………Mr Atul Sahi & Mr Praveen Bisht-AR

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                       Dr P N Tiwari             Member

                       Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by -  Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant purchased Acer Desktop Veriton vide model no. IC 5641 with genuine window 7 professional for sum of Rs 28,600/- with other accessories as TFT, CPU and ‘I’ ball key pad and paid total sum of Rs 30,000/- vide invoice no. 021 on dated 25/01/2013 (Ex CW1/A) with its configuration details (Ex CW1/B).

It had been stated that the said desktop was brought and installed on the same day (25/01/2013) by the service engineer of OP2. While installing the desktop, it was noticed that the original seal of CPU was broken so refused for installation. The service engineer, Faheem, noted in the invoice as “CPU seal Broken” (Ex CW1/A). He talked to his depot manager, but did not get any reply. So, the system was packed by the service engineer and kept in the house of complainant. Complainant made number of telephonic calls to OP2 and later two letters were sent on 06/02/2013 and 14/02/2013 (Ex CW1/C&D), but both the letters were returned with postal mark as “No such firm address”. When no reply was received filed this complaint claiming the cost of Desktop Rs 45,000/-with compensation Rs 45,000/ for harassment at 18%interest with adequate cost of litigation.  

OP1 submitted written statement and stated that computers were sold in India through their authorised distributor who sells their products to various retails/partners. It was stated that OP2 was authorised as ‘Acer Authorised Mall’ and submitted a copy of memorandum of agreement (Ex OPW1/1), but OP2 was neither dealer nor seller. Their all specifications were given in booklet which was supplied at the time of delivery of products. All other allegations were denied as wrong and incorrect. It was stated that OP1 had many models in the market and customer choose as per their demand and choice.  

OP1 had also submitted a list of contents of CPU which does not have DVD writer.  It was stated by OP1 that their all products had clear declaration on every package that ‘Please do not accept system if seal is broken’.  As in this case as seal was found broken, OP1 had no liability as the product was sold by OP2 which clearly states in their terms and condition of Memorandum of Agreement clause 26 which reads as –

“Clause 26 of Memorandum of Agreement-

Acer publishes its pricelist from time to time which shall be supplied to the Acer Mall. The Acer Mall shall not market Acer’s Products at prices higher than the maximum prices recommended (MRP) in the price list. Acer Mall may sell products lower to the MRP, but at the higher price and in such condition, OP1 shall not be responsible. In any deviation in the terms and conditions, Acer Mall shall be responsible”.

Hence, OP1 had no deficiency in services or had any unfair trade practice in manufacturing or selling their products to their authorised dealers as alleged by the complainant and prayed for excoriate their roll.

OP2 did not submit their written statement despite of giving ample opportunity.

Complainant submitted rejoinder to written statement of OP1 and denied all the replies submitted by OP1 in written statement and reaffirmed that OP1 was the sole responsible for supplying spurious product. He also submitted his evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that the Desktop purchased was not genuine and was confirmed by the service engineer of OP2.  

OP1 also submitted their evidence through Mr Praveen Bisth, authorised representative of OP1 and stated on oath that all the contents and annexure as OPW1/1 was correct and all the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Agreement were clear and any deviation by any one, OP1 would not be responsible.  

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and order was reserved.

After analyzing all the facts and evidences on record and applicable clause (26) of the Memorandum of Agreement, it was the duty to replace the CPU in question as its genuine seal was broken. So, we come to the conclusion that OP2 was deficient in their services as per the agreement between OP1 to take necessary steps to replace the CPU when original seal was broken which was duly noticed by service/ installing engineer (Mr Faheem). So, this complaint has merit and that being so, we pass order as under—

1. OP2 shall replace the CPU of same brand and configuration within 30 days from the receiving of this order and hand over complainant in his satisfaction or shall refund the cost of CPU of same configuration.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 7500/- for harassment. This will include litigation charges also.
3. If order is not complied within stipulated time, complainant shall be entitled to recover entire awarded amount with 7% interest from the date of order till realized.
4. There shall be no liability of OP1.

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member

 

                                                 Sukhdev Singh, President