In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.354/2012
1) Saikat
Mali,
27/936, Kaikhali, Biman Nagar,
Suravi Apartment, Flat No.GA, Kolkata-52. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Creative Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
1/2, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2) The Manager, ASUSA Technology Pvt. Ltd.
31, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-13.
3) ASUS Technology Pvt. Ltd.
4C, Gundecha Onclave, Kherasi Road,
Near Sakinaka Police Chowki, Sakinaka,
Andheri-E, Mumbai-400072. ----------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member
Order No. 6 Dated 21/01/2013.
In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that o.p. no.1 is the authorized seller of the ASUS laptop computer and o.p. no.2 is the regional office of the manufacturing company and o.p. no.3 is the head office. The complainant purchased one laptop from o.p. no.1 on 14.7.11 being model no.X53U-SX013D, serial no.B5NOCJ 13802021A on payment of total consideration amount of Rs.18,200/- and at the time of purchasing of the said laptop o.p. no.1 promised to the complainant that the Windows-7 shall be installed by them absolutely free of cost but the same was installed after expiry of 10 days from the date of purchase but surprisingly the said Windows-7 become vanished after 15 days from the date of installation and when the complainant contacted with o.p. no.1 it was told that the said Windows-7 was trial pack and not for permanent and for the purpose of permanent use the complainant has to purchase the soft ware Windows-7 and as such the complainant was having no other alternative compelled to purchase the Windows-7 from o.p. no.1 on payment of Rs.1500/- but refused to issue any money receipt to the complainant.
Thereafter, within one month from the date of purchase, the said laptop computer became inoperative and the complainant rushed to o.p. no.1 but the employees of o.p. no.1 specially one named “Partha” behaved rude manner towards the complainant and lastly the complainant lodged the complaint through toll free number of the manufacturer and after expiry of about 45 days from the date of lodging of complainant one person attended on 19.10.11 and after scrutinizing the alleged laptop he opined that the battery of the laptop was defective and required to be replaced and accordingly the battery was replaced.
But in the month of Jan 2012 again the said laptop become non functional and accordingly again complaint was lodged to the o.ps. and on 17.2.12 one representative attended and repaired the laptop in question and at that time the said representative opined that the laptop in question had some inherent manufacturing defects but refused to write anything in the jobcard.
Once again in the third week of June 2012 the said laptop become non functional and again complaint was lodged with o.ps. when it was promised that the representative would attend within 7 days thereof but no representative ever attended to meet the problem of the computer in question but time to time the complainant contacted with the representative of o.ps. to resolve the issue but ultimately o.ps. failed to meet the problem and thus the warranty period was expired on 14.7.12 and when the complainant again contacted with o.ps. then it was told by them that the complainant has to pay the necessary charges to get the service since warranty period of the laptop has been lapsed.
The complainant lodged the complaint to o.ps. well within warranty but o.ps. failed and neglected to attended the problem and by this way o.p. took time in any way and when th e warranty has expired then only demanded money taking the plea that the warranty has been expired and as such the intention of o.ps. are to extort money from the complainant in any manner whatsoever and o.ps. sold a manufacturing defect laptop computer to the complainant and tried to remove the defect and lastly refused to provide service to the complainant which is gross deficiency in serv ice and unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. for providing services upon the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant, having no other alternative, was compelled to write letters to o.ps. on 20.7.12 through speed post and the same were duly received by o.ps. but no step has been taken by o.ps. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against them.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant evidence and documents in particular. As none of the o.ps. has appeared before this Forum even after valid service of summons the documents remained unchallenged testimony. From the record it is crystal clear that complainant purchased a laptop computer on 14.7.11 from o.p. no.1 on payment of consideration amounting to Rs.18,200/- , with warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. upto 13.7.11. As per the complainant he was assured by the representative of o.p. no.1 that the Windows-7 would be installed by the o.p. no.1 absolutely free of cost but o.p. no.1 demanded Rs.1500/- for permanent installation of Window-7 and the complainant also paid the same to the o.p. no.1 but o.p. no.1 denied to issue any money receipt. In this regard we are of the opinion that as there is no scrap of paper to substantiate the contention of the complainant that the complainant paid Rs…… for installation of Windows nor any document to establish the point that the o.p. no.1 committed to install the Windows-7 absolutely free of cost, this Forum has declined to give any relief considering the fact of
failure and/or negligence of o.ps. to install Window-7 in the computer of the complainant.
from the record it is observed by the Forum that the laptop computer was purchased on 14.7.11 and the battery of the goods in question was replaced on 19.10.11 by the o.p. no.1as the battery of the newly purchased laptop computer was defective. Again on 17.2.12 the computer in question was repaired by the representative of o.p. no.1 because the computer was out of order once again. With the light of discussion it is beyond doubt that firstly one of the vital parts of the computer was needed to be replaced only after 3 months 4 days from the date of purchasing of a brand new computer. Moreover, after 7 months 3 days from the date of purchase once again repairing of the goods in question was required. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the laptop computer in question could not run in defect free condition only after 3 months 4 days from the dated of purchase and was out of order again after7 months 3 days. It is not natural and not at all desirable that any consumer has to suffer harassment and/or disturbance due to any defect of newly purchased goods only after 3 months and again after 7 months. We are of the opinion that the computer in question had manufacturing defects and all the o.ps. could not shirk off their responsibility to redress the dispute of the complainant / consumer.
This Forum also opines into the view that for this act of the o.ps. complainant has to suffer tremendous harassment and mental agony and all the o.ps. are jointly and/or severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against all the o.ps. All the o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the cost of the laptop in question amounting to Rs.18,200/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred) only and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant shall return the old laptop, if lying with hi, to o.ps. within 15 days from the date of full realization of the award.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum if this order shall not be complied within stipulated period.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
