Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/448/2014

Mr. Rajesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/448/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	08/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	02/03/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Sharma S/o Sh.Rishi Inder Nath, R/o H.No.887, Sector 45, Burail, U.T. Chandigarh.

……Complainant

Versus

 

(1)  Asus Technology Pvt. Limited, 4C, Gundecha Onclave, Kgherani Road, Near Sakinaka Police Chowki, Sakinaka Andheri-E, Mumbai – 400072, through its Managing Director/ Nodal Officer/ Manager.

 

(2)  Asus Technology Pvt. Limited, 1121-1123, Ansal Tower 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019, through its Manager.

 

(3)  M/s Digicomp Complete Solution Limited, F-51^St Floor, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi, through its Manager.

 

(4)  M/s Kudos Infotech, SCO 2443-44, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

(5)  Om Computers & Communication, SCO 1034-35, Cabin No.10, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Complainant in person.

Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 ex-parte.

Sh. Ravi, Authorized Agent of Opposite Party No.4.

None for Opposite Party No.5.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased ASUS Motherboard from Opposite Party No.5 for Rs.4000/- vide retail invoice dated 18.08.2011 (Annex.C-1), with three years warranty. It has been alleged that the said motherboard stopped working on 18.6.2014. As such, the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.4 (Service Centre), but it refused to entertain the request saying that the product was dusty. Dis-satisfied with the reply of Opposite Party No.4, the Complainant contacted the Helpline No.18002090364 and registered his grievance on 19.6.2014 vide Complaint ID No.WTM20140620010323919. However, on the next day, the Company representative, citing reason of missing component, denied the warranty to the Complainant. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he served a notice (Annexure C-7), as a measure of last resort, calling upon the Opposite Parties to redress his grievance, but there was no positive response. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3, despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 25.08.2014 and 09.10.2014.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.4 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that it is only a service provider and the Complainant approached it with physical defect in the motherboard. It has been asserted that the motherboard was liquid damaged and few components were also missing from it. After checking the motherboard, the answering Opposite Party handed over the same to the Complainant because there was no technical defect rather it was physical defect due to the negligence of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.5 in its reply has admitted that it had only sold the product vide invoice dated 18.8.2011 to the Complainant. It has been pleaded that the sole responsibility and liability towards the product in question was that of the Manufacturing company i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.5 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and Sh. Ravi, Authorized Agent for Opposite Party No.4 and have also perused the record.  

 

7.      In the present case, the Complainant purchased one ASUS Motherboard from the Opposite Party No.5 for a sum of Rs.4000/- vide Invoice dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure C-1), with three years warranty, which stopped working on 18.06.2014 i.e. two months prior to the expiry of the warranty term. As per the Complaint, Opposite Party No.4 (Service Centre) refused to repair the aforesaid Motherboard being dusty product. The Complainant even contacted the Helpline number of the Company, which again denied the warranty to him. Annexure C-7 is the intimation letter by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 regarding his grievance. Annexure *C-1 to *C-9 are various e-mail communications between the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant. Annexure *C-10 is the letter by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant with an offer of the replacement of his defective Motherboard with one from its ‘Buffer Stock’ as an extended support to him, as the product was out of warranty being physically damaged.

 

8.      As per the version of the Opposite Party No.5, it is only a Retailer and sold the product in question to the Complainant. Therefore, it is nowhere liable for the warranty. 

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.4 is that there was physical damage in the Motherboard when it was thoroughly checked. Annexure R-4/3 to Annexure R-4/17 are various photographs of the damaged product depicting various defects due to its being physically damaged, with specific mention that there was no technical defect in the product. Opposite Party No.4 has further contended that it being only a service provider is not liable for further action, if required.

 

10.      After going through the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that no doubt the Motherboard in question stopped working on 18.6.2014 i.e. two months prior to the expiry of its warranty as the same was purchased on 18.8.2011 as per Annexure C-1. But Annexure R-4/3 to Annexure R-4/17 are the various photographs produced on record by Opposite Party No.4 showing the physical damage of the product which were not rebutted/ denied by the Complainant even after getting the opportunity of filing the rejoinder. Instead of filing the rejoinder, the Complainant placed on record Annexure *C-1 to *C-9 the various e-mail communications between him and the Opposite Party No.1. In response to the same Annexure C-10 is the letter by Opposite Party No.1, vide which it agreed to replace the physically damaged product with one out of its ‘Buffer Stock’ as extended support, as the product in question was out of warranty due to physical damage, during the pendency of this case only.

 

11.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

12.      In our opinion, this matter could be resolved amicably without giving any kind of physical and mental harassment to their customer by the Opposite Parties even before filing of this Complaint, but this act of offering the replacement out of their buffer stock, during the pendency of the case by Opposite Parties, proves deficiency in service on their part. 

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To replace the defective Motherboard of the  Complainant with one out of company’s buffer stock, along with fresh warranty of one year; 

 

[b]  To pay a composite amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;

 

14.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the cost of the Motherboard i.e. Rs.4,000/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.4,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.07.2014 till realization.

 

15.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02^nd March,2015                                         

Sd/-

  (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER