Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/606/2018

Pawan Kumar Vaid - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ranjivan Singh Adv., Ripudaman Singh Roop Adv. & Deepika Adv.

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	606 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	01.11.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

 

 

 

Pawan Kumar Vaid s/o Late Sh.Om Parkash Vaid, aged 46 years, Superintendent Grade-I-cum-Protocol Officer, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, resident of House NO.758,  Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.   

                      ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd., 402, 4^th Floor Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai through its Director-cum-Manager.

 

2]  M/s. ASUS Company, Noble Biztech Pvt. Ltd., SCO 75, Tribune Road, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

3]  ASUS Customer Service Centre, SCO 274, 1^st Floor, Market Road, Near Nirman Theater, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.  

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

 

Argued By:       Sh.Ranjivan Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Arshdeepo Arora, Adv. proxy for Sh.Gagan Bajaj, Adv. for OP No.1

Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Adv. proxy for Sh.A.D.S.Jatana, Adv. for OP No.2.

OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Laptop of ASUS Company from Opposite Party NO.2, for an amount of Rs.34,300/- on 27.4.2016 having warranty of two years including service at Global Level. It is averred that in Oct., 2017, the Windows got corrupted all of a sudden, which was got reloaded from Opposite Party No.3.  It is stated that the laptop again gave problem in Nov., 2017, which was reported to Opposite Party No.3, who repaired it by changing its Mother-Board and Head and returned in Dec., 2017.  It is also stated that the said Laptop again gave problem while it was being used by son of complainant at Surrey, Vancouver, Canada, which was reported to the OPs through email dated 6.1.2018 followed by another mail dated 15.1.2018 (Ann.C-3 & C-4).  Thereafter, on 29.1.2018, Opposite Party No.3 advised the complainant to visit the Service Centre in Canada in order to resolve the problem and in query it revealed that Authorised Service Centre of ASUS Company is in Toronto.  It is submitted that the expenditure of shipping charges to the tune of 250 Canadian Dollars was to be borne by the complainant, which was exorbitant and as such, under the compelling circumstances, the son of the complainant purchased a new MacBook Air from Apple Store at Surrey, Vancouver, Canada by spending 1400 Canadian Dollars (Ann.C-5A).  Thereafter, the Laptop was brought back to India and it was reported to OPs for making it functional or refund the cost thereof, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed and kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant also sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.  

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the sale and repair of the laptop in question, denied other allegations being not related to and for want of knowledge.  Pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2 has filed reply and while admitting the sale of the product in question, stated that the warranty was as per manufacturer’s norms and the norms are part of the booklet provided to complainant. It is denied that any verbal terms of warranty of 2 years or that of global level warranty was given by Opposite Party No.2 on the said product.  Other allegations have been denied for want of knowledge and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua Opposite Party NO.2.   

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.1.2019.

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties present and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one Laptop of ASUS Company from Opposite Party No.2 for an amount of Rs.34,300/- on 27.4.2016. 

         It is stated by the complainant that the Windows of the Laptop in question got corrupted in Oct., 2017 and the same got re-loaded from the Opposite Party NO.3.  It is also stated that in Ist week of Nov., 2017, the Laptop again developed a snag and as such taken to Opposite Party NO.3, where it was detected that there is some problem in Mother Board and Head of the product.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party NO.3 in Dec., 2017 handed over the Laptop to the complainant after changing its Mother Board and Head.  The Opposite Party NO.2 admitted the above said repair i.e. reloading of windows, change of mother board and Head of the Laptop of complainant under warranty, free of cost. 

 

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that the laptop in question purchased on 27.4.2016 having 2 years warranty was neither repaired abroad by OP Company having overseas warranty nor by Opposite Party No.3 when it was brought to India. The complainant also sent emails to the Opposite Parties on 17.2.2018 and 19.2.2018 (Ann.C-6 & C-7) about the defect in the Laptop.

         However, the Opposite Party No.2 denied that the warranty of 2 years on the laptop in question as well as denied that any global level warranty was given by Opposite Party No.2 on the said product.  It is stated that the laptop was repaired during warranty period when it was brought to Opposite Party No.3.   

 

7]       After going through the submission of both the parties & evidence placed on record, we are of the opinion that though there is no specific document produced on record by either of the party about the warranty available on the Laptop in question, but in the wake of the fact that after its purchase on 27.4.2016, it got repaired on two occasions i.e. in the month of Oct., 2017 when the corrupted Windows were reloaded and thereafter immediately submitted on Nov., 2017 for repairs and was handed back in the month of Dec., 2017 after changing of its Mother Board and head, which other way round corroborates the assertion of the complainant that the product in question is having two years warranty as claimed.  None of the Opposite Parties present have objected or contradicted the factual matrix of the case with any documentary evidence otherwise.   

 

8]       It is also observed that the Opposite Party No.3, with whom the Laptop was submitted for repairs, chose not to appear and preferred to be proceeded exparte indicating that it fully admitted the claim of the complainant and have nothing to controvert the allegations of the complainant. 

 

9]       The record in the shape of email correspondences placed on record very cogently establish that the Opposite Parties are not willing to give proper service to the complainant and are just making fool out of him by lingering on the matter. 

 

10]      A particular reference is made to the mail dated May 17, 2018 (Ann.C-14) where by the Opposite Parties were made well aware that the laptop in question has been brought back from abroad for getting the same repaired.  It is observed that despite being made aware about the present status they vide email dated June 19, 2018 (after 1 month) (Ann.C-20) convey the complainant as under:-

“As per Revert: Still We ae ready to provide service to customer. Unit carry Local Onsite and GSM carry in service.  Customer is in Canada and was asking onsite service there which was not possible as per warranty policy in Canada (GSM) device carried carry in service. Service centre guided same to customer and requested to visit nearest service centre in Canada to get service but customer not ready.” 

 

11]      The referred email suggests that there is no coordination between various departments functioning under OP Company and are not bothered about redressal of the grievance at their end.  They are not bothered to consider the e-mails sent by the complainant apprising that he had brought back the laptop from abroad for its repair. 

 

12]      In this scenario, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that it is in the interest of justice that the complainant be refunded back his hard earned money spent on the purchase of defective Laptop, which the Opposite Parties are reluctant to repair/replace despite repeated requests, thus also forced him to indulge in present avoidable litigation. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 with following directions:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.34,300/- to the complainant being the invoice price of the Laptop in question.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant causing mental agony & harassment due to their deficient act coupled with unfair trade practice;
3. To pay Rs.8000/-towards litigation expenses.

         This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

 

13]      However, the complainant shall return the Laptop in question to the Opposite Parties on receipt of above awarded amount,

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

10^th June, 2019                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER