DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10th day April, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 12/01/2022
CC/07/2022
Aswathy.S.
Bhaskar Nivas, Kottayi P.O.
Palakkad – 678 572
(By Adv. K. Dhananjayan) - Complainant
Vs
1. ASUS India
Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd
402,4th Floor, Supreme Chambers
17/18 Shah Estate, Veera Desai Road
Andheri West, Mumbai - 400 058
2. Compuage Infocom Ltd.
12/1027-33, 1st floor
K.K.Building, Mettuppalayam Street
Palakkad – 678 001 - Opposite parties
(By Adv. Bijesh.K)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant purchased a laptop manufactured by first opposite party on 10/06/2020. After two months the laptop started showing screen freezing issues. When the issue was informed to the service centre of the first opposite party, they expressed their inability to attend to it because of lock down due to Covid-19. Later in 2021, just 2 months before the expiry of the warranty period, the complainant contacted them again and they provided onsite free service to the product. After a few days the same problem recurred and a second free service was given. The laptop continued to show the same issue. When she contacted them again, the response was very bad. Even after 3rd and 4th servicing the problem couldn't be fixed. When she was asked to give the product for 5th servicing, she refused to give, as she had lost confidence on their ability to solve the issue.
Because of the problems of the laptop she couldn't attend her online classes properly for which it was purchased. Finally the complainant filed a complaint on the National Consumer Helpline. Through she received calls from higher officials of the first opposite party, the issue remained unresolved and hence she approached this Commission seeking refund of the original cost of the laptop and a total compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony, loss of classes etc. apart from cost.
2. Notices were sent to the opposite parties. First opposite party entered appearance and filed version refuting all allegations. The second opposite party didn't enter appearance hence was set ex-parte.
According to the first opposite party, the first complaint made by the complainant on 27/03/2021 was resolved by replacing a defective part and returned the laptop on 05/04/2021. Later on 10/11/2021, when the complainant reported the problem for the second time, the opposite party kept the laptop for a few days with them as requested by the complainant inorder to have a thorough check up. The product was examined by experts through standard testing procedures and they could find that it was working smoothly and hence the complaint was closed on 20/12/2021. Inspite of this, she continued complaining. Though the warranty period is over the opposite party is willing to resolve any pending issues, but the complainant refused to hand over the product for servicing. They also raised the issue of not impleading the dealer as a party to this case.
3. Issues framed
- Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party?
- Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the defects of the laptop as alleged by her?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
- Reliefs as to cost & compensation.
4. The case was referred for Adalath held on 27/05/2022 but a settlement could not be reached.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext. A1 & A2 as evidence.
Ext. A1 is the tax invoice issued by M/s. Tech-Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. for the Laptop purchased by the complainant and A2 is the ASUS Product Service Form. As per the proof affidavit, the Ext. A2 is marked as an evidence to show that the laptop delivered after repair was defective, no narrations to that effect is seen in the said exhibit.
The opposite parties didn't file proof affidavit.
6. Issue 1
The invoice (Ext. A1) has been issued by M/s Tech-Connect Retail Ltd., and hence they should have been impleaded as an opposite party. Therefore this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
7. Issue 2 to 4
The adduced evidence is not sufficient to prove a prima facie case against the opposite parties. Ext. A1 marked is the invoice which is only the proof of purchase of the laptop manufactured by the first opposite party, which has already been admitted by them. Further, no expert opinion was sought to assess the present status of the laptop to prove that the laptop is still defective after the repair. Hence there is no evidence to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
8. Issue 5
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:
Ext. A1: Tax invoice of laptop purchased by the complainant dated
06/06/2020 for Rs. 35,525/-
Ext. A2: ASUS Product Service Form dated 10/11/2021.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
