CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No. 243/2018
BAL KISHAN VERMA
R/o HOUSE NO. 49-N,
CBI COLONY, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057…..COMPLAINANT
MOBILE NO. 9013815586
Vs.
- ASUS SERVICE CENTRE
UNIT 10 A, DEVIKA TOWER,
LALA LAJPAT RAI ROAD, NEHRU PLACE
NEW DELHI – 110019 .…..RESPONDENTNo.1/ OP
- ASUS INDIA PRVIATE Ltd.
(DHL SUPPLY CHAIN INDIA PVT Ltd)
SHED NO. 6, CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION
G.F, WHS, NEAR DSIDC COMPLEX,
KIRTI NAGAR, DELHI-110015 .…..RESPONDENTNo.2/ OP
Date of Institution-15/11/2018
Date of Order- 12/07/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA - PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions against the OP for either repairing/replacing the mobile or refunding the cost of the mobile @ Rs.9500 with interest along with the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental torture pain and agony as also Rs.20,000 as litigation charges. OP No.1 is Asus service centre and OP No.2 is Asus India Pvt. Ltd.
The complainant alleges that he has purchased ASUS Zenfone vide model number CP/N-ZC 550KL 23IN/ASUS-Z0100, IMEI No. 35197608 7945008 for a sum of Rs.9500 vide bill number 15725 dated 24.04.2017 annexed as Annexure 1. It is stated by the complainant that while his phone was in warranty, it's touch stopped working there was an earphone problem and the display used to switch off and on. When the son of the complainant visited the authorised service center i.e OP No.1 he was advised to leave the handset so that they could inform within 48 hours, after removing the defects from the phone. The complainant was told that he should have the phone submitted on 04.04.2018 and the product service form was given to him, RMA No. INUJ40075 is annexed as Annexure 3. It is stated by the complainant that he received a call from the OP No.1 that the body of the said phone is ‘bent’ and Rs.3,000/- will be charged for repairing the same. The complainant and his son replied that there was no ‘bent’ noted at the time when the job card was opened and it is also to be noted that neither the mobile had fallen from his hand nor any damage or scratches have been noted by the OP. It is stated that OP while inspecting had not disclosed about any ‘bent’ at the time of inspection of the phone. The complainant alleges that the ‘bent’ problem was an illegal explanation as the OP did not want to honour the warranty and it is further alleged that the mobile is having a manufacturing defect.
It is further alleged by the complainant that when he called the head of the service center and the zonal head, both the senior persons did not resolve these issues and in fact, started threatening and misbehaving with the complainant. The complainant sent various emails and reminders to the op regarding repairing or replacing the said defective mobile as there were no internal or external damage, liquid damage, scratches, cracks etc that was either noted by the complainant or the service center till the time it was deposited in this service center and it is not understood as how any damage was caused to the phone. The complainant has, time and again tried to contact the consumer helpline as also other officials of the OP, however and the only response that he got was ‘not processed yet’ when he complained on the national consumer helpline on 21.08.2018 vide complaint number 876596.
It is further stated by the complainant that he is facing a lot of problems and financial loss experiencing tension, mental agony, stress, physical harassment etc. because of the negligence caused by the OP and for which the OP is liable to pay.
Per contra, OP No. 2 has stated that though the defect has arisen within the warranty, yet the defect has arisen due to the negligence of the complainant therefore the OP is not liable. It is also stated by the OP that this Commission has no jurisdiction as per the warranty policy provided by the OP for all the matters and Mumbai courts have exclusive jurisdiction. It is also stated that the complaint is based on false and frivolous facts which are not true and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OP.
On merits, it is stated that that the complainant was asked to pay for the damaged phone for its repair since it was not covered in warranty. The payment pertained to LCD, GST, tax etc and the complainant was given at 15 % discount on parts but the complainant wanted the phone to be repaired free of cost. It is stated that there was no defect and the defect alleged by the complainant is the damage which is caused by the complainant himself. It is stated that it was admitted by the complainant that the said mobile had a ‘bent’ which was caused because of the negligence of the complainant himself and therefore the same was beyond the warranty condition and the complainant was liable to pay for the same. It is further stated that the mails and reminders of the complainant were duly replied to and he was told that the repair would be done on a chargeable basis but the complainant never confirmed for the repair.
It is also further stated that only on thoroughly checking the phone, one can know the reason of the phone not working and the real fault comes to fore only when the phone is opened for repair. When the phone was opened for repairs and checked, it was found ‘bent’ due to which it had stopped functioning and the same was conveyed to the complainant. It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the phone as it is not possible to have a single phone from the whole lot to have a ‘bent’ body. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint having no cause of action against the OP.
OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.03.2019. Both the complainant as well as OP No. 2 have filed their reply, rejoinder as well as evidence affidavits and also written arguments are on record. Oral arguments were also heard.
Having gone through after going through the entire material on record, it is observed that though the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect yet has not lead any evidence for his allegation relating to manufacturing defect in the phone, therefore this allegation of the complainant is liable to be rejected.
The objection relating to the territorial jurisdiction is bereft of any merit and is therefore, dismissed.
However, this Commission is of the view that the defect as alleged by the OP in the phone should have been visible to the naked eye at the time when it was first brought to the service station for the first time. It is not a kind of a defect which could have only be seen after the opening of the phone, therefore, the OP is guilty of deficiency in service by not providing free of cost repair at the time of the period of warranty when the phone was brought to them.
Both the OP 1 and 2 are directed to repair the said phone of the complainant free of cost within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. However, if
the repair of the said phone is not possible then the cost of the mobile that is Rs. 9,500/- after deducting depreciation as it was used by the complainant for about 10 months be provided to the complainant i.e Rs. 5,000/- . Along with the above stated, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony is being granted to the complainant to be provided by both OP nos. 1 and 2. No amount is being given as litigation cost. This order should be complied within a period of 3 months from the date of the order failing which the entire amount will carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till its compliance.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
