BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 542 of 2010 Date of Institution : 26.08.2010 Date of Decision : 25.05.2011 Deepak Arora, H.No.303-B, Railway Officer Circle, Jagadhari Workshop, Yamuna Nagar (Tel. No.01732 249222) ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] ACER India (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chandigarh Business Centre, Cabin No.7, SCO No.2441-42, IInd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. 2] Noble Informatique, Chandigarh, SCO No.61, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh. 3] ACER Customer Services Centre, Digital Solutions (ACER) SCO No.357, IInd Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Adv for the complainant. Sh.M.S.Saini, Adv. for the Ops No.1 & 3. OP-2 already exparte. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Deepak Arora against the OPs alleging deficiency in service and harassment by selling a defective laptop. The complainant had purchased an Acer Laptop from OP-2 for Rs.34,000/- on 29.8.2009. A copy of the invoice has been placed at Ann.C-1. The laptop carried warranty of One year. Since the laptop has not been giving satisfactory performance, the complainant had to approach OP-3 for repair of the laptop in April, 2010 & June, 2010. The complainant has attached copies of the complaint at Annexures C-3 & C-4. The complainant has alleged that the laptop is still not giving satisfactory results and OP-3 has refused to entertain the complaint, even though the laptop is well within the warranty period. Hence, he has filed the instant complaint alleging that since the product is neither steady nor efficient, it is not acceptable to him. The complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the laptop along with compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. OPs No.1 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed reply, whereas OP No.2 has not appeared on 5.10.2010 despite the service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte on that date. In the joint reply filed by OPs No.1 & 3, who are the Manufacturer and Service Centre respectively, the OPs have taken the preliminary objection that the complainant has not approached them for redressal of his grievance and has instead come to the court. They have said that the OPs are so liberal with the customers that they have never refused the customers even if the warranty of the product is over. The OPs are hence ready and willing to rectify any problem in the product/laptop. However, the complainant will have to pay for any defective part(s) since the laptop is now out of warranty. On merits, the OPs No.1 & 3 have submitted that the complainant has not defined how the laptop is not working satisfactorily or what is the problem with it and what is the level of satisfaction of the complainant. The dates mentioned, when the laptop was brought to the service centre, are after 8 months of purchase and the laptop has been returned after rectification of the defect. However, in reply to the allegation of the complainant that the warranty provides for refund of cost/replacement of product, the OPs have contended that the company never refunds money in any condition of warranty but definitely repair the product free of cost as per terms & conditions of the warranty. The replacement is only made when the machine is in no condition to be repaired. Denying other allegations, the OPs No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint as it is vague, misconceived and false. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OPs No.1 & 3 and have perused the record. OP No.2 is already exparte. 5] The allegation of the complainant is that the laptop is not working properly. However, whenever he has taken the laptop to the OPs for repair, he has been adequately attended to and his machine has been repaired. The complainant while filing the instant complaint has not been able to specify any particular problem/fault in the laptop. The OPs have offered to still repair the laptop, free of cost, as a gesture of goodwill, even though it is now out of warranty. However, the OPs have submitted that the complainant has to pay for any replacement of any defective part. 6] In our opinion, the complaint has been filed within warranty period but the complainant has not specified any particular defect in the laptop. However, we are of the opinion that the OPs are liable to repair the laptop without asking for any payment for either repair or replaced parts as the complaint was filed well within the warranty. Since, no major defect has been pointed out, we do not deem it appropriate to order for replacement of laptop/refund of price. 7] In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, we allow this complaint in favour of the complainant with the following directions to the parties:- i) The complainant will take the laptop to OPs within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the OPs shall repair the laptop to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and return it in a properly functional condition within 7 days from the receipt of the laptop without charging anything towards repair or replacement of any part(s) thereof. ii) The OPs shall also give a fresh warranty of 3 months on the repaired laptop from the date of delivery to the complainant. iii) In case the laptop in question seems to be non-repairable, the same should be replaced with a new one of the same configuration & model within 30 days. iv) No order as to cost. 8] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 25.05.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
