BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                                :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                   :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                            :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 170/2015     Filed on  24/04/2015 

                                          Dated:  30..11..2015

Complainant:

Nikhil Malhotra, Scientist / Engineer, NISD/CNG/AVN. VRC, VELI, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Thiruvananthapuram.

                    (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd., 402, 4^th Floor, Supreme Chambers, 17/18 Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 058.

2. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., 308/309, Nirma Plaza, Makwara Road, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 059.

3. Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., Meenakshy, T.C.11/147,  2&3, Kanakanagar, Nanthencode, Kawdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.

This C.C having been heard on 30..10..2015, the Forum on 30..11..2015  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

          Nikhil Malhotra is the complainant in this case. ASUS Technology Pvt Ltd, Mumbai and Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram and Mumbai are the opposite parties in this case. The case is as follows. He is using a Laptop worth Rs.  42,000/- from 2013 onwards. During his travel from Delhi to Mumbai in April 2014, the product broke as the bag titled inside the scanning machine during the scan. The product was so flimsy that the screen and the key board cover got shattered, though the impact was seemingly harmless. He gave it to the Rashi Peripheral representative at Mumbai and paid the charges for repair. He got it back after 4 weeks with full payment of Rs. 13,000/-. But the repair was not correctly done. Since he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, he approached the Rashi Peripherals, Thiruvananthapuram to get the remaining repairs completed and informed them that he had paid the full amount for the repair, that is, Rs. 13,000/- to their Mumbai Branch, but again he was asked to pay Rs. 2,000/- for remaining fixes. Even after repeated demands opposite parties were adament in charging him and he paid Rs. 2,000/- again. It remained in service centre for quite a long period rather than in his hand and the purpose for which the Laptop was purchased was failed. So he was forced to pay Rs. 15,000/- as repair charge for a Laptop worth Rs. 42,000/- and remained in the service centre denying him the opportunities of his purpose for about 3 – 4 months. When he complained before the 1^st opposite party they told him that as the product is physically damaged, they cannot do anything and at maximum they can give him a discount of 10% on this repair. So he apprehends that it has some hardware issue and there will be some physical damage to the Laptop and so he put it in some chamber and do not use it. So he claims for refund of the purchase price along with cost of repairs with cost and compensation.

          2. Notice was served to the opposite party, but they failed to appear and we proceeded exparte against them.

  Complainant filed affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.

          3. Issues:

          (i)  Whether the allegations in the complaint is proved?

          (ii) Costs and compensation if any?

          4. Points (i) & (ii):  Documents filed by the complainant are perused,  most of them are e-mail communications between the complainant and the opposite party. His case is that the Laptop had been repaired by the opposite party by taking money from him. Being the authorised service person it is their duty to rectify the defects in the Laptop. Complainant purchased the Laptop for a purpose which is not served due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties. He was forced to pay Rs. 15,000/- as repair charges. Here the complainant himself admits that the Laptop was physically damaged as the bag titled inside the scanning machine during the scan. The inferior quality of the material is clear from this incident. Since the defect in the laptop was rectified the complaint was not in a position to prove the allegation. But the fact remains that he was devoid of his purpose for more than 6 month for which he is to be compensated which we fix as Rs. 20,000/-.

          In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs. 20,000/- as compensation within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which the amount will attract interest @ 9% till the date of realisation. No order on cost. 

         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of November, 2015.                               

                                Sd/-  LIJU B. NAIR        :         MEMBER

  Sd/- P. SUDHIR            :         PRESIDENT

Ad.                           Sd/- R. SATHI               :         MEMBER

C.C.No: 170/2015                      

APPENDIX

  I. Complainant’s witness                    :         N I L

II. Complainant’s documents:

          P1      :  Copy of receipt dated 25/04/2014 of Rs. 9100/-

          P2      :  Copy of receipt dated 09/05/2014 of Rs. 3900/-

          P3      :  Copy of receipt No.509 of Rs. 1600/-

          P4      :  Copy of E-mail dated 14/07/2014

III. Opposite parties’ witness                         :         N I L

 IV. Opposite parties’ documents                   :         N I L

Sd/- PRESIDENT

  ad