Haryana

Karnal

CC/546/2019

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus Technology Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surjeet Singh Mandhan

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.546 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt. 27.08.2019

                                                        Date of decision 05.02.2021

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Ram Asara resident of House no.A-483, Sadar Bazar, Karnal

      …….Complainant 

                                        Versus

 

1. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. SCO no.349, Mugal Canal Karnal through its branch Manager Rajnish.

2. Konde Products & Service Private Limited situated in village Binola Gurgaon, through its Branch Manager.

3. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. 4C, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Veera Desai road Industrial Area Andheri West, Mumbai (Maharastra-400072).

…..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.       

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Surjeet Singh Mandhan counsel for complainant.

               Opposite parties exparte.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant  purchased one handset mobile set make Asus Zenfone bearing IMEI no.359376093413947, 359376093413954, serial no.J7AAB7602724A5H for a sum of Rs.14,999/-, in the name of his minor son namely Krishna Kharbanda from the OP (hereinafter referred as to OP ) no. 2 through online purchasing. The OPs have given the guarantee/warrantee for one year from the date of purchase. OP no.1 is the authorized repair centre of the OP no.3 and OP no.3 is the manufacturer of the Asus Mobile Phones and OP no.2 deals in the sale of the mobile of OP no.3. Complainant started using the handset but it is very surprising to see  that the Spy Camera and Secret Camera works only 30 second and thereafter stop the video making and only audio was working. The complainant also found that the Whatapp web of the Asus Zenfone was also not working which was not uploaded on the computer. Further, the said mobile also used to switch off and the Auto recording also stopped automatically. The ear phone has also not been connected in the said phone. At the time of call the said mobile phone also came on automatic speaker on mode and said mobile also became hot while talking. Thereafter, the complainant contacted to the OP no.1 and narrated the aforesaid problem. OP no.1 has checked the mobile phone and told that this is minor defect and this type of defect is in all the mobiles of the Asus Technology. On this the complainant requested the OP no.1 to replace the same because the said mobile was under warranty, but the official of the OP no.1 has not given any positive response. This fact clearly proved that the mobile set is totally defective one. The abovesaid mobile was not working properly since the very date of purchase, in this regard the complainant made several complaints to the OPs orally as well as through e-mails to the OPs, but the OPs have not paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The mobile set so purchased by the complainant has now been stopped, this fact is clearly proved that the mobile set sold by the OPs defective one. OPs have provided the defective set and the purpose of purchasing the mobile has not been fulfilled. The complainant requested the OPs several times for replacement of the mobile set in question but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to replace the mobile set in question. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 25.10.2019 and 18.01.2021 respectively.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/a, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of notices Ex.C2, Ex.C4, Ex.C6, Ex.C8, copy of postal receipts Ex.C3, Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C9  and closed the evidence on 04.02.2021.

4              We have heard the learned counsel of complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully

5.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased one mobile set Asus Zenfone for a sum of Rs.14,999/- from OP no.2 through online.  After purchased the said phone, the mobile set creating the problem of Spy Camera and Secret Camera works only 30 second and thereafter stop the video making and only audio was working. Whatapp web of the Asus Zenfone was also not working which was not uploaded on the computer. The mobile set in question also used to switch off and the Auto recording also stopped automatically. The ear phone has also not been connected in the said phone. At the time of call the said mobile phone also came on automatic speaker on mode and said mobile also became hot while talking. The complainant contacted to the OP no.1 and narrated the aforesaid problem. OP no.1 kept the mobile set but did not success to rectify the defect after their several efforts. In support of his allegations, complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of notices regarding defect in the mobile set in question Ex.C2, Ex.C4, Ex.C6, Ex.C8 and copy of postal receipts Ex.C3, Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C9. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has been proved from the evidence lead by the complainant and documents placed on file that mobile set in question is having a manufacturing defect. During the warranty period, it was the duty of the OPs either to rectify the defects from mobile set of the complainant or to replace the same, but OP failed to do so. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.

6.             As per the version of the complainant, he has purchased a new handset, as mobile set in question was giving many problem from the very beginning and he has no need of the mobile set in question.  Lastly, complainant prayed for refund the cost of the mobile set.

7.             In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.14,999/- as cost of the mobile to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Complainant is also directed to handover the old mobile set alongwith accessories to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:05.02.2021                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member