Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/630/2020

Dipesh Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.P. Singla Adv

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	630 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.11.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	13.12.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Dipesh Singla aged about 18 years son of Sh.Yashpal Singla, R/o H.No.184, Ground Floor, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at: 402, 4^th Floor, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400058, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director (Manufacturer)

2]  Boss Computers Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.56, Tribune Road, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Director (Authorized Dealer)

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.Y.P.Singla, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Counsel for OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he is a student of B.E. in Computer Science Engineering and as such purchased one Laptop of Core i7 9^th Generation/16 GB RAM/256 GB SSD – Model No.G731GT-AU006T from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, for an amount of Rs.92,300/- vide Receipt dated 28.8.2019 carrying one year warranty from 28.8.2019 to 27.8.2020.  The complainant also opted extended warranty on the laptop by making additional payment of Rs.999/- and it was valid till 27.8.2021 (Ann.C-2 & C-3).

         It is stated that just within one month of purchase, the laptop started giving problem of sound system as a result, the complainant was not able to hear his lecture online.  The matter was reported to OP but due to imposition of lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the laptop was taken to the OPs on 5.6.2020 whereupon the OPs replaced the faulty Hard Disk (HDD) of the laptop (Ann.C-5).  After some time, the laptop developed another defect when its speakers started giving trouble and its sound started bursting; it was taken to OPs and the faulty speakers were replaced on 23.10.2020 (Ann.C-6).  It is submitted that just within 5 days of replacement of speakers on 23.10.2020, the laptop gave another problem on 28.10.2020 about very slow network.  On reporting the matter to OPs, the official of OPs replaced the WIFI Card of the Laptop but even after replacement of WIFI Card, the network problem/issue in the laptop was not rectified (Ann.C-7).  The complainant reported this matter to the OPs even through emails (Ann.C-8) but they fail to rectify the defect in the laptop. It is pleaded that the due to frequent problems and repair in the brand new laptop of the complainant, his studies suffered a lot and he faced harassment.  It is also pleaded that the complainant requested the OPs to either replace the laptop with new one or refund the amount thereof, but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to either replace the laptop or refund its price of Rs.92,300/- along with interest as well as compensation and legal cost.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OP No.1 put in appearance and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about sale and repair of the laptop in question, stated that on 28.9.2019 the complainant brought his product to the Service Centre for carrying out ADT (Asynchronous Data Teleservice) and WTP (Web Tools Platform) test and during tests, it was found that for better synchronization, the HDD (Hard Disk Drive) was required to be replaced and accordingly, the Hard Disk Drive of the laptop was replaced on 5.6.2020.  It is stated that the low sound system of laptop was neither in existence nor found.  It is submitted that on 23.10.2020 the complainant brought this laptop to the Service Centre with complaint of noise from speaker; ADT & WTP tests were carried and it was found that the product was working fine.  It is pleaded that it was found that the laptop had fallen from the complainant and due to accidental fall, the wires of the speaker were loose, but instead of soldering the wires, the speaker was replaced with brand new speaker.  It is also pleaded that slow network issue was not found in the product and for the alleged slow network concern, the product is not to be blamed, instead the user might be experiencing issues with a slow application or website.  It is stated that there was no WIFI Card issue in the product.  It is also stated that the laptop in question is working fine and there is no issue in it and the complainant is utilizing the product properly.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

         The OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence OP No.2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.07.2021.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP No.1 made in its written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written arguments. 

 

6]       The main question in the present complaint is whether there is a defect in the product or not and the second question is whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in not providing after sale services by replacing the laptop in question despite several repairs or not?

 

7]       To find out answer to these questions, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         As the complainant has to get the product in question repaired time and again from the OPs soon after its purchase and especially during the warranty period, so it proves that that the product in question is defective.  The complainant visited the Service Centre of the OPs on 28.09.2019, 5.6.2020, 23.10.2020 and 07.11.2020 to get the product repaired.  The complainant has placed on record Annexures C-4 to C-7 to this effect. 

         In Vinoo Bhagat vs. General Motors (India) Ltd. & Anr., First Appeal No.150/1998, decided on 30.01.2003, the Hon’ble Apex Consumer Commission put two conditions for ordering the refund or replacement of the defective product.  It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Consumer Commission that when manufacturer/dealer fails to rectify the defect despite given reasonable opportunities, then the order or direction to refund or replacement of the product is correct.

         It is well settled that if the product could not be repaired despite several attempts of repairs then it could be held as defective product and the complainant is entitled to either get a new similar product or refund of its price.  In the present case, as the parties have lost faith, therefore, it is better to direct the OPs to refund the price of the product instead of providing new product of similar kind because the trust between the parties have lost.   

 

8]       The complainant has alleged that the laptop in question started malfunctioning soon after its purchase as a result its Hard Disk Drive (HDD) was replaced by the OPs. The speakers of the Laptop in question were also replaced with new one.  The complainant claims that the laptop in question is still giving problems and it is not performing well.  

 

9]       It is observed that though the OPs had repaired the laptop in question free of cost by replacing its Hard Disk Drive within first year of its purchase and then its speakers, but keeping in view the overall facts & circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that as the product in question becomes defective soon after its purchase, therefore, the complainant has lost faith upon the product in question.  Thus, it would be in interest of justice and equity to direct the OPs to refund its price to the complainant instead of its further repairs and by not providing after sale services to the complainant i.e. replacing the laptop with new one, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which certainly has caused harassment, mental agony and loss to the complainant.

 

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.92,300/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its purchase/28.08.2019 till its actual realization. The complainant shall return the old laptop in question along with its accessories, if any, to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

11]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.        

Announced

13.12.2023                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER