Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/252/2021

Mehak D/o Sh Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Computer Shopee - Opp.Party(s)

Anand garg

13 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.252 of 2021

                                                     Date of institution: 31.08.2021

                                                     Date of decision: 13.12.2021.

 

Mehak d/o Sh.Arvind Kumar resident of house No.236, Sector 7, Urban Estate, District Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Computer Shopee, KDB Road, near Brahma Chowk, Thanesar, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.

2.Shivom  Communications, First Floor, Bansal Building, near Geeta Dwar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra through its authorized Signatory.

3.Asus India Private Limited, Corporate office at 4C, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Veera Desai Road, Industrial Area, Andheri West, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400072 through its authorized signatory.

….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Issam Singh  Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Anand Garg Advocate for the complainant.

                Ops ex parte.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Mehak  against the  Computer Shopee etc.- the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a graphic designer and has purchased a Asus Laptop FX506LH-HN258TS (15/8/512/4GB/15”) vide bill  no. Casopee/1471 dated  7.7.2021 for Rs.65,550/- from OP No.1 for her office work because graphic designing work can only be done on laptop. The OP No.1 is authorized dealer and the OP No.2 is authorized customer care service provided of OP No.3. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of Asus Laptops.   It is further submitted that immediately  within 3-4  days from the date of purchase, the above said laptop started display flicking problem and the complainant approached the OP No.1 to replace the laptop with new one and the OP No.1 a told  the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for her grievance and accordingly  the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the redressal of her grievance and on 6.8.2021 OP No.2 had diagnosed the “ Display Flicking Issue”  and repaired the same. After 2-3 days the same display flicking problem started again and the complainant  again approached the Ops and the Ops disclosed that the said problem is manufacturing defect in the laptop. Complainant wrote   various e-mails to the Ops and visited their offices number of times but they are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The said laptop is lying useless. The complainant is facing great hardship and she is also unable to do her  graphic  designing  work due to sale of defective laptop by the Ops.  Thus, such an act on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in services. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to  return Rs.65,550/- i.e. cost of the laptop alongwith interest and compensation for the mental harassment caused to her together with the litigation expenses.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. Ops failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.11.2021.

 

4.             The complainant in support of her case has filed her affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and  tendered documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed her evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone  through the case file very carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is a graphic designer and has purchased a Asus Laptop FX506LH-HN258TS (15/8/512/4GB/15”) vide bill  no. Casopee/1471 dated  7.7.2021 for Rs.65,550/- from OP No.1 for her office work because graphic designing work can only be done on laptop. The OP No.1 is authorized dealer and the OP No.2 is authorized customer care service provided of OP No.3. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of Asus Laptops.   It is further argued that immediately  within 3-4  days from the date of purchase, the above said laptop started display flicking problem and the complainant approached the OP No.1 to replace the laptop with new one and the OP No.1 a told  the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for her grievance and accordingly  the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the redressal of her grievance and on 6.8.2021 OP No.2 had diagnosed the “ Display Flicking Issue”  and repaired the same. After 2-3 days the same display flicking problem started again and the complainant again approached the Ops and the Ops disclosed that the said problem is manufacturing defect in the laptop. Complainant wrote   various e-mails to the Ops and visited their offices number of times but they are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other.

7.             From the above version of the complainant, it is established that the complainant purchase a Asus Laptop FX506LH-HN258TS (15/8/512/4GB/15”) vide bill  no. Casopee/1471 dated  7.7.2021 Ex.C-1 for Rs.65,550/- from OP No.1 for her office work because graphic designing work can only be done on laptop. The OP No.1 is authorized dealer and the OP No.2 is authorized customer care service provided of OP No.3. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of Asus Laptops.   It is further argued that immediately  within 3-4  days from the date of purchase, the above said laptop started display flicking problem  as shown in Job sheet(Ex.C-2) and the complainant approached the OP No.1  to replace the laptop with new one and the OP No.1 a told  the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for redressal of his grievances but the Ops failed to remove the problem which developed in the laptop of the complainant. This version of the complainant completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged because Ops failed to appear and rebut the version put forwarded  on behalf of the complainant.  Therefore, there is deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the laptop i.e. Rs.65,550/- from the Ops alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to her and the litigation expenses.

8.             In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.65,550/- (i.e. Cost of the laptop)   to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and Rs.5000 /- towards litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant shall return the  defective laptop to the Ops. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.                         President.

Dated: 13.12.2021.

 

                                Member             Member,