Haryana

Ambala

CC/115/2023

GAGANDEEP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALPHA COMPUTERS. - Opp.Party(s)

SUKSHAM AGGARWAL.

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

                                                          Complaint No.115 of 2023

                                                          Date of Institution:24.03.2023

                                                          Date of Decision: 14.08.2024

 

Gagandeep Singh aged 49 years son of Smt. Inderpal Kaur resident of House No.45, Preet Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Aadhar No.868011408542 and Mob No.9350169775.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

Versus

1.       Alpha Computers through its Managing Director/Propertier/Partner Shop at SCO 170, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.133001, M-9416020805.

 

2.       ASUS Service Center through its Propertier/Partner/Authorized Representative at SCO 817-818, First Floor, Sector-22-A, Chandigarh-160022.

 

3.       ASUS India Managing Director/CEO/Partner at Supreme Chambers, 4^th Floor, 402, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400053.

                                                                                                        Opposite parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Ms. Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the  complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 2 already ex parte.

                   Shri Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order: -      Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.78,000/-, i.e. the cost of the laptop in question alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment.
3. To pay Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Asus Notebook Laptop Model No.AS425-G513H-HN086T-ASUS/NOTEBOOK/R7-4800H 8G GC 1Y GRAY for a sum of Rs.78,000/- on 02.03.2022, from the OP No.1, upon the social media advertisements given by the OPs No.1 and 3 claiming them to be one of the best gaming laptops in the industry. Complainant purchased the particular model laptop upon the advice and allurement of the OP as he was told by them that this is the best laptop for gaming purposes. Complainant could not afford the amount of Rs.78,000/-, immediately and he thus made payment of Rs.27,890/- immediately and made monthly payments of 10 installments of Rs.5200/- in addition to the above amount. He thus paid a total sum of Rs.79,890/- to the OP No.1. Just within two months purchase of the laptop, the complainant started facing problems in the laptop. The son of the complainant namely Manveer Singh was accessing the Laptop in the month of June,2022 and he was shocked to see that the laptop had started showing thermal throttling. He thus went to the OP no.1 who further sent the complainant and his son to reach to the OP No.2 for any service related issue and refused to provide any assistance. Complainant and his son thus went to OP No.2 who were also surprised to see such problem in the laptop at such an early stage and admitted that there is a manufacturing defect in the laptop. Then serviced the laptop and applied the thermal paste on CPU and GPU and assured the complainant that the problem will be resolved. The laptop did  not work properly even for a week after service. The laptop would turnoff while  running by itself and sometimes it would  create problem in the middle of working on the same. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 who inspected the laptop and told that there is a defect in motherboard of the laptop. Thus OPs changed the motherboard of the laptop , which is the main component in any computer. The complainant told the same thing to the representatives and the engineer of the OPs and requested to provide replacement of the laptop as admittedly, it had manufacturing defect. But they all assured that the problem will end  with the replacement of the motherboard and after this, the complainant will not face any other issue in the laptop. Even then the laptop started creating troubles within few days of the replacement of the motherboard of the laptop. The Engineers of the Op company visited the house of the complainant and made thorough inspection of the laptop and even some engineers from outside also came to check the laptop. Then they told that Laptop is again having problem in motherboard only and took the same with themselves in the month of September,2022, the motherboard of the laptop again replaced for second time and the complainant had to wait for 10 days for the same. This time the engineers of OP company showed their inability to provide replacement of the Laptop to the complainant and however they admitted that there is fault in the laptop. The complainant further submitted that Laptop did not work properly even after replacement of motherboard for the second time. Again in the month of November,2022 the laptop started creating major problems and same started showing thermal throttling due to opening of the hardware again and again. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 at Chandigarh but no avail Thus the complainant has lost the faith in false promises and assurances given by the opposite parties as they have befooling the complainant since purchase of the laptop because of which the complainant had to  suffer loss both financially as well as ruthless behavior. The Ops have not redressed the grievance of the complainant. Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint

2.                Notices sent to OP no.1 and 2 not received back. From the tracking report, it was evident that notice was delivered to OPs no.1 and 2  but none has put in appearance on behalf of OP no.1 and 2 As such, OPs no.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order passed by this Commission on 08.06.2023.

3.                 Upon notice, OP no.3 appeared and filed written version  and raised preliminary objections with regard to complainant has neither any cause of action nor any locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint and the subject matter of the complaint relates to the alleged defect in the Laptop in question which requires voluminous evidence in regular course and subject matter of the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of this  Hon’ble Commission, the OP No.3 is a well-reputed company that has been dragged into an uncalled litigation.  On merits, it was admitted that the complainant has purchased a laptop manufactured by OP No.3 and denied that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop. Rather the complainant himself diagnosed the laptop with some outside engineers, thus violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy of the company. The officials of OP 3 have discharged their duties diligently and efficiently and provide services to the customers to their best and even as a token of goodwill OP No3. Offered the Extended warranty as the laptop in a running condition. OP no.3 cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP no.3 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW-1/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-29 and close the evidence of the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered the affidavit of Pradish Nair, National Service Manager/ authorized representative of OP No.3 as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.  

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP no.3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.  

6.                During the course of argument, the counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as narrated in the complaint. The counsel for the complaint further argued that since the purchase of the laptop, motherboard of the laptop have been replaced even then the laptop did not work properly and it is admitted that the 8 to 10 times the repair of the laptop were got done but the problem in the laptop  exist. The counsel for the complainant argued that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                To refute the allegations of the complainant, the counsel for the OP no.3 argued that it was admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a laptop manufactured by OP No.3 and denied that there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop. Rather the complainant himself diagnosed the laptop with some outside engineers, thus violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy of the company. The officials of OP 3 have discharged their duties diligently and efficiently and provide services to the customers to their best and even as a token of goodwill OP No3. Offered the Extended warranty as the laptop in a running condition.. OP no.3 cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and rayed for dismissal of the complaint whereas OP no.1 and 2 are proceeded against exparte.

8.                It is an established fact that the complainant purchased the laptop in question from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.78000/- vide Tax Invoice dated 02.03.2022 ( Annexure A-1)  and manufactured by OP No.3.  It is  also admitted fact that the complainant approached the OP No2 which is authorized service centre of OP No.3 for resolving defect in the laptop.  In support of this fact the complainant produced job card in evidence i.e. Annexure C-3 and C-4. The complainant also annexed various e-mail exchanged with OPs regarding the defects and redressal of his grievance i.e. Annexure C-5 to C-29. It is also proved that the motherboard of the Laptop in question was replaced twice. On the other hand the counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that the services were given to the complainant on each and every date when he comes to them. The plea of the OP No.3 is that the complainant got repaired the Laptop from outside thus the complainant violated the terms and condition of policy of OP No.3 but no cogent evidence has been placed on record in this regard. The OP No.1 and 2 did not appear before this Commission and they were proceeded ex parte. By adducing evidence, the complainant proved that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus the OPs held liable to refund the amount of Rs.78,000/-, as well as also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. 

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally, in the following manner:-

1. To refund  Rs.78000/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of purchase of the Laptop in question, till its realization.
2. To pay lumpsum amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum for the period of default, till its realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :14.08.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

         Member                          Member                    President