Date of Filing:06/11/2015
Date of Order:22/08/2016
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for direction to the O.P to replace the Laptop either of the same configuration or to refund the amount along with compensation.
2. The facts leading to file this complaint is that, the complainant purchased the ASUS Laptop on 9.11.2014 for Rs.28,729/- at Reliance Retail Ltd. i.e. from O.P No.3. When she was using internet with repaid data card, the internet window given by I-ball, the system started consuming more data in terms of MBS for a short time without any downloads. The system automatically updating without the knowledge of the user thereby complainant lost more GB of data inturn money for short time of browsing without any downloads. Hence the complainant handed over the laptop to O.P.No.3 and in turn given to laptop to the O.P.No.2 who is the authorized service center for ASUS laptop. The allegation of the complainant is that though she approached the O.P. service center more than two to three times. But O.Ps neither repaired the laptop nor replaced the same or refunded the amount and till today the laptop is with the O.Ps. Further complainant states that, though she complained to the higher authority none has taken action. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P.No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel filed its respective versions. O.P.No.2 placed ex-parte. In the version O.P. No.1 contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts. Further all the allegations made in the complaint denied as absolutely false and untenable. It is submitted that, O.P.No.1 possesses a high esteem over the last few decades dealing in the laptops and mobile phone and built a high reputation and earned the goodwill in the present market. The complainant approached the authorized service center of O.P.No.1 on 3.9.2015 through one Vasanth Kumar with respect to the issue of more consumption of data usage while operating the data card in the laptop and proper assistance was provided to the complainant accordingly. That the said unit was diagnosed thoroughly and the mother board of the said unit was replaced and it was delivered to the complainant on 11.9.2015 as apparent from the job sheet dated 3.9.2015 and hence contended that the allegations made by the complainant are false and shame. Further contended that the complainant approached again on 14.9.2015 through Mr.Vasanth Kumar with the same issue and request to install the operating software, against the said query was resolved by the authorized service center by re-installing the operating software and deliver the said laptop to the complainant on 21.9.2015. Once again on 23.9.2015 complainant approached the service center with the same issue of more data consumption. However the authorized service center directed that there was a issue with the third party software and the same was conveyed to the complainant as well but inspite of that the complainant was desirous of getting the said laptop replaced. Since there was no technical/hardware issue in the said laptops of the complainant and it was in working condition, thus the O.P No.1 did not adhere to the unreasonable demand and the complaint was adamant to fulfill the illegal demand of the replacement of the said laptop somehow. Hence O.P.No.1 contended that the complainant has preferred this complaint as the pressure tactics by misusing the machinery of law to make her ends meet. The complainant in the present complaint alleges the excess internet consumption on the said laptop of the complainant is not the technical problem, the consumption of the date depends upon the usage and the basic surfing i.e. visiting websites, sending or receiving e-mails (without attachments) does not involves the transfer of large amounts of data. The O.P.No.1 also contended that the following common activities can quickly increase the usage: 1) Sharing files via peer to peer software 2) Streaming visual files, as when communicating via Webcam 3) Video conferences 4) Watching online video sites like YouTube 5) Downloading music and movies 6) Listening inter radio and 7) Playing network games. The consumption of the data depends upon the activities performed by the user and not by any technical reasons. Hence O.P.No.1 contended that the issue raised by the complainant is baseless and no case is made out against the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 also given better service to the complainant. On other grounds O.P. No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the version O.P.No.3 contended that, they are engaged in retail sales of electronic goods and home appliances. The O.P.No.2 (O.P.No.1) is a well known manufacturer and marketer of ASUS products including but not limited to laptops. The O.P.No.3 is the one of the dealer of the O.P.No.1 duly authorized to sell the products manufactured by the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 is responsible to provide all after sale services in relation to the products manufactured and marketed by it. O.P.No.2 is one of the authorized service center. Moreover O.P.No.1 vide its warranty undertake to service its products and rectify the manufacturing defects, if any, in the products sold to the retail customers subject to the warranty conditions. O.P.No.3 contended that as per the complaint there is no deficiency in service attributed against the O.P.No.3. As per the information by the O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.3 the laptop is working normally and free from any manufacturing defect. Though O.P.No.3 is not a necessary party to the proceedings but unnecessary arrayed as party to the proceedings. When no deficiency is attributable to this O.P.No.3, hence contended that the complaint is not maintainable. On other grounds O.P. No.3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed the affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) and (B) : In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and (B):-
8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed fact that, the ASUS laptop purchased by the complainant from O.P.No.3. It is also not in dispute O.P.No.1 is the manufacturer of the laptop and O.P.No.2 is the authorized service center. On perusal of the entire complaint the only allegation of the complainant is that the laptop in question consumes much data and hence she has given it to authorized service center through O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.2 rectified the defects by replacing its parts and delivered back to the complainant. It is further allegation of the complainant is that she had given laptop in question but alleged that the data consumption will be more. Per Contra, O.P.No.1 contended that, the consumption of data related third party software issues and not with the laptop and the same was explained to the complainant. It is true that, the consumption of the data depends on the usage of the various activities like: 1) Sharing files via peer to peer software 2) Streaming visual files, as when communicating via Webcam 3) Video conferences 4) Watching online video sites like YouTube 5) Downloading music and movies 6) Listening inter radio and 7) Playing network games.
9. On perusal of the evidence filed by the complainant and the complainant nowhere whisper anything about the non-using of the above activities (1) to (7) as contended by the O.P.No.1 for consumption of data. Furthermore, on perusal of the whole complaint the complainant did not say anything about the manufacturing defect and also not attributed any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. As per the evidence on record the laptop in question is in usable condition free from manufacturing defect. Viewing from any angle the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence the complainant has not entitled for any reliefs as sought in the complaint. In the light of above discussions we accordingly answered these points in the negative.
POINT (C):
10. On the basis of the findings given above on the point No.(A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- 01. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 22th Day of August 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
