Haryana

Karnal

318/2014

Jagjeet Singh S/o Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Computer Apps - Opp.Party(s)

Swaran Singh

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.318 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.: 3.12.2014

                                                                Date of decision:26.04.2016

 

Jagjeet Singh son of Shri Avtar Singh resident of House no.381 Guru Nanak Pura, near Hansi Chowk, Karnal

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Computer Apps, 39 Mugal Canal, Karnal through its partner/authorized person.

2. Acer Service Centre, 107, mugal Canal, Global Sysnet through its authorized person.

3. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Devika tower 3^rd floor, 6 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Manager Customer Support/authorized person.

4. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., 7^th floor, Sebiz Square plot no.IT C-6, IT Park, Sector 67 Mohaali 160062, through its sale manager/authorized person.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-         Sh.Swaran Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Kuldeep Singh Advocate for the Opposite parties no.3 &4

                     Opposite parties no 1 and.2 exparte.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Acer laptop model no.E5-511-P7UX  from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.22622/- vide invoice no.82 dated 29.7.2014. The said laptop was manufactured by opposite parties no.3 and 4. There was hanging problem in the said laptop from the day one. He approached the opposite party no.1 number of time. Opposite party no.1 checked the laptop and updated the driver software.  However, the same problem developed again. Therefore, he approached opposite party no.2 the authorized service centre on 18.9.2014, who checked the laptop and changed the window of the laptop. After few days, the laptop again started giving same problem and used to hang automatically. Then, he went to the opposite party no.2 on 4.10.2014 and after checking hard disk was changed by the opposite party no.2. Again after few days the same problem of hanging automatically developed. Therefore, he went to opposite party no.2 on 8.10.2014. After checking, the opposite party no.2 updated the bio and software system, but the defect was not rectified. He again approached the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2014 and sent e-mail to opposite party no.4 for change of the laptop/refund the purchase price but opposite parties no.2 to 4 continued to put off  the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, they refused to entertain his complaint.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 despite service. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiating against them vide order dated 22.1.2014.

3.                Opposite parties no.3 and 4 put into appearance and filed  written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not come before this forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false, frivolous and abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 the authorized service centre for the first time on 18.9.2014. The complainant alleged that the laptop created problem from the day one and in order to solve the same he approached the opposite party no.1. In fact complainant was required to approach the authorized service centre for repairing the laptop as opposite party no.1 was not the authorized service person. However, the note book the operating system were installed and the laptop was returned to him in working condition on 19.9.2014. Thereafter, the complainant again lodged complaint on 4.10.2014 with the problem of hard disk. Therefore, hard disk was replaced and the laptop was put to working condition and handed over to complainant on 6.10.2014. The third complaint was made by the complainant on 14.10.2014. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 suggested change of the motherboard of the laptop, but the complainant started demanding refund of the money, which he had paid for purchasing the laptop. The demand of the complainant was not genuine, therefore, the same was rejected. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C6 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand in evidence of opposite party no.3 and 4, affidavit of Parveen Bisht Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6  have been tendered.

5.                We have the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

6.                It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased one laptop from opposite party no.1. The said laptop was manufactured by opposite parties no.3 and 4. The complainant for the first time approached the opposite party no.2 on 18.9.2014 and after checking the window of the laptop was changed. He again approached to opposite party no.2 on 4.10.2014 and hard disk was replaced. He lastly approached  opposite party no.2 with the problem of hanging automatically on 14.10.2014, change of motherboard was suggested but the complainant demanded refund of the price of the laptop. The documents Ex.C4 to C6 also indicate that the complainant had taken the laptop to opposite party no.2 on 18.9.2014, 4.10.2014 and 14.10.2014 for the purpose of repairs. On 14.10.2014 it was suggested that the motherboard was required to be replaced.

7.                From the afore discussed facts and circumstances, it is established that the laptop was giving problem during warranty period and opposite party no.2 being authorized service centre of opposite parties no.3 and 4 try to remove the defects and lastly suggested replacement of the motherboard. Repeated problem in the laptop show that there was some manufacturing defect in the laptop of complainant during warranty period, therefore, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 were bound to repair the laptop or replace the same with a new one of the same value/or refund the purchase price.

8.                 As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.3 and 4 to replace the laptop of the complainant with new one of the same value/or refund him the purchase price. We further direct the opposite parties no.3 and 4 to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 26.4.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member