CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.421/2009
SH. GAURANG BHARTIA
R/O 19 JOR BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110003
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ASUS TECH PRIVATE LIMITED,
405, 4TH FLOOR, PADMA PLACE,
BUILDING NO.86, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 01.12.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Asus laptop(Serial No.5CNOAG059799) laptop in February 2006, manufactured by OP, for his personal use. The laptop functioned normally till October 2007. However, in November 2007, the complainant started experiencing technical problems. Complainant tried to contact OP number of times but in vain. Finally he got in touch with OP and OP asked complainant to get in touch with Neoteric, service representative of OP in New Delhi, represented by Mr. Akhil Gupta on 24.12.2007 and also sent him an email informing him about the various problems he was facing with the laptop. Vide email dated 07.01.2008, he was informed that his complaint has been registered and the same was in progress.
Complainant handed over his laptop for repair on 18.04.2008 to Neoteric (Authorized Service representative of OP, at 103 Ideal House, 69, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19) and he was assured that it would be repaired and handed over to him by 22.04.2008. The laptop had neither been repaired nor had the complainant been informed about its status. After spending many weeks constantly and seriously pursuing the matter, complainant was told that laptop could not be handed over to him so soon as the LCD panel cover had been damaged. This damage was caused while the same was in the custody of OP. Mr. Akhil Gupta vide his email dated 21.07.2008 informed the complainant that the matter was a long pending one and no one was taking the matter seriously Complainant expressed his discontentment to OP vide email dated 04.08.2008 describing his disappointing experience with OP. The aforesaid email was acknowledged but no action was taken. On 15.09.2008, he finally received his laptop after waiting for long, to his dismay, he discovered that additional problems had cropped up in the laptop which had been non-existent prior to handing over the laptop to OP for repair. Complainant was compelled to send a notice via email dated 05.10.2008. On the receipt of notice OP asked the complainant to give his laptop for repair at their second address at Nehru Place. Another tiresome round of emails and telephone calls followed and again, it yielded no results. It is prayed that OP be directed to replace the laptop with a new laptop of today’s configuration and also to pay Rs.5 lakh for compensation as well as litigation expenses.
Nobody appeared for OP despite service of notice. OP was accordingly proceeded ex parte. It is evident from the emails discussed above, that the laptop was handed over to the authorised service station of OP. It is also evident from email dated 21.7.08 of Mr. Akhil Gupta of the service centre Neoteric, addressed to the complainant stating therein that the matter is pending since very long and after so many times he updated the same to the authorities but no one is taking the same seriously to resolve the matter. He sought the help of complainant to sort this long pending matter. Even the legal notice was sent vide email dated 05.10.08 to OP. Thereafter OP asked complainant to hand over his laptop for repair for at their second address of Nehru Place. Complainant subsequently stated that once again he had to make at least two trips to the service centre, only be told that he would be informed about the availability of the required components which was never done. Complainant has placed on record an email dated 04.9.8 received from OP where OP has informed the complainant that they have considered the case of the complainant and his laptop is under warranty and the spares of the same will be delivered to Neoteic Service Centre within next two days. It is proved from the documents on the record that laptop of the complainant was under warranty when the same became defective. However, the defect was not cured despite lot of time taken at the end of OP. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant has asked to replace the laptop when this complaint was filed in the year 2009. During the course of arguments, he submitted that since models of laptop have changed, it will be of no use to have the same laptop and instead of replacement asked for the amount of the laptop apart from compensation and litigation expenses.
OP is directed to refund the amount of laptop to complainant alongwith 10% interest p.a. from the date of filing of complaint plus Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses. Complainant is directed to hand over the laptop to OP.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
