BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.59 of 2021
Date of Instt. 05.02.2021
Date of Decision: 03.08.2022
Sagar Grewal Age 34 years, S/o Surinder Kumar Grewal, B-X/673, Kishanpura, Jalandhar Mob. No.9646032413.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Digital World, 137-138, Monika Tower, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar. Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
2. Acer Service Centre, Inside HP Service Centre, Johal Market, Near Bittu Pardesi, Jalandhar. Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
3. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Embassy Heights, 6th Floor, No.13, Magrath Road, Bangalore-560025 Through its Director/Authorized Representative.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Arvind Randev, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 withdrawn.
Sh. S. K. Joshi, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.
Order
Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 10.12.2020 the complainant purchased a Laptop of Acer company bearing Sr. No.NXHVUS10050451FA627600 Rs.27,000/- from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.6514 dated 10.12.2020. One year warranty was given by the OPs for above said product. At the time of sale, the OP NO.1 assured and told the complainant that in case of any defect or fault if arisen in the said product, the Laptop would be replaced immediately. Relied upon the averment of OP NO.1, the complainant purchased the above said laptop computer from OP No.1. Within warranty period i.e. after 17 days from the date of purchase the above said Laptop became out of order/totally dead. On 28.12.2020, the complainant told the OP No.1for non-operation of Laptop. When the OP No.1 checked the Laptop at their shop, it was found dead and no current was passing to operate the Laptop. The OP No.1 told the complainant that the employee of OP no.2 is not present here, so, advised the complainant to come after three days. On 04.01.2021 the complainant again approached the OP No.1, who told the complainant to contact OP No.2 for solving of his Laptop problem. When the complainant reached the service centre/OP No.2, the OP No.2 told the complainant to lodge the complaint through customer care service which the complainant lodged vide complaint No.3822251I, but no action was taken till date. After three days from the date of registration of above said complaint, an engineer of OPs checked the Laptop and told the complainant that the Laptop is totally dead and no current is passing to operate the Laptop. He made service report dated 11.01.2021 that checked Laptop Adaptor charging light is showing but Laptop is totally dead. Customer not agrees for open it. Customer wants DOA (Replacement). The complainant purchased new Laptop for Rs.27,000/- with hope to dispose off his pending work but all his hopes turned down on ground when the said newly purchased Laptop failed to operate. The OP No.2 intended to open the whole body of Laptop which the complainant refused as the Laptop is newly purchased. If the body of new purchased Laptop is opened it would appear like second hand Laptop in future. The said defective Laptop returned by the OP No.2 to complainant which is not working and still lying as dead piece. The complainant requested many times OPs to replace the said Laptop, but the request of the complainant was turned down. The OPs have conducted negligence and deficient service towards complainant and have not replaced the product as per their promise made at the time of sale of said product and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the said Laptop with new one and in the alternative to refund the price as per bill i.e. Rs.27,000/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. As such, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The answering OP is only concerned with the sale of a genuine product as per the terms and conditions of the Invoice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. As per the documents submitted by the complainant, the service report of Acer Service Centre, is on the file, specifically showing that it is the complainant, who refused to open the laptop for checking purposes and or rectify the defect if any. He insisted the OP No.2 to change the laptop. The answering OP has no concern with the same and it is the discretion of the company to change the product or not. The instant complaint is abuse of process of law. It has been filed with malafide intentions to harass the answering OP and to malign the reputation of the OP No.1. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the Laptop by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Complaint against the OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant, vide his separate statement dated 26.10.2021.
4. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.3 is engaged in the manufacture/import of desktop computer systems, servers, laptops, notebooks, monitors, projectors, tablet PCs and supporting IT peripherals, and trading thereof, and provision of ancillary services connected therewith. Due to technological advancements within the field of information technology equipment industry, the laptop computer manufactured today contain numerous major components crucial for its’ functioning. In case where even a single component malfunctions, the complete laptop computer is required to be examined by a technically qualified engineer, as such repairs require specialized equipment and need to be carried out under controlled environment only. However, the same does not mean that the laptop computer was defective and is merely a casual effect of reparability limitations. As per the limited product warranty policy, this answering OP No.3 was entitled to conduct thorough examination of the laptop computer of complainant for finding out the root cause of problems emanated from it. It is only after finding out root cause of the problems, a decision as to whether a full unit replacement is needed or not, could be arrived. However, the complainant hindered this answering OP No.3 from undertaking its warranty obligation. Additionally, the complainant did not furnish any test report or expert report in support of his allegation stating that OP No.3 had sold defective laptop computer and lastly submitted that to direct the complainant to submit his laptop computer to the authorized service provider of OP No.3 for the purpose of examination and to allow OP No.3 to provide warranty support services as per its limited product warranty policy and to dismiss the complaint as it is devoid of any merits.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1, filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
6. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
7. We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.3 as well as case file very minutely.
8. The complainant purchased a Laptop on 10.12.2020 of Acer Company bearing Sr. No.NXHVUS10050451FA627600 for Rs.27,000/- from OP No.1. The invoice has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-1. As per Ex.C-1, this Laptop was purchased by the complainant with ‘one year warranty without Adp.’ As per the allegations of the complainant, on 28.12.2020 the complainant complained the OP No.1 for non-operation of Laptop and when the Laptop was checked, it was found dead as no current was passing to operate the Laptop. The OPs suggested the complainant to visit after three days. On 04.01.2022, the complainant approached the OP No.1, who suggested him to approach OP No.2 and when he approached OP No.2, he was asked to lodge the complaint through customer care. As per Ex.C-2 after the complaint was registered by the complainant, the service report was made by the employees/mechanics of the OP No.2. As per the report, ‘checked Laptop adaptor charging light is showing, but Laptop is totally dead. Customer is not agree for open it. Customer wants DOA (Replacement)’.
9. The contention of the OP No.3 is that there are so many components in the Laptop, which help in its functioning and if one of the component malfunctions, the same is required to be examined by a technically qualified engineer, but the complainant refused to get the same opened. After opening the Laptop only, the OPs could come to the conclusion that as to whether the same suffers any manufacturing defect or there is no technical defect or other defect, but the complainant refused. Merely on this ground, the Laptop cannot be replaced and the counsel for the OP No.1 has alleged that OP No.1 is not responsible, if any defect occurs in the Laptop as the OP No.1 is only seller and the defect, if any is to be removed by the company.
10. It is proved that the complainant purchased the Laptop on 10.12.2020 and on 28.12.2020 as per submission of the complainant, the same was found non-operational. Though, there is no document on the file to show that the complainant ever approached the OPs with the complaint on 28.12.2020, but there is a report Ex.C-2 of the service centre/OP No.2, which clearly shows that on 11.01.2021 i.e. after one month of the purchase of the Laptop, the same was found dead and the same was not being charged though light was showing and blowing. The company of OP No.3 is reputed company and the complainant has spent Rs.27,000/- for the purchase of the Laptop for his own convenience, but he was given defective piece of Laptop by the OPs despite his complaint and his issue was not resolved. The OPs were ready to repair the same after one month of its purchase though the same became non-operational after 18 days of its purchase as per the submission of the complainant. The complainant rightly refused to get it repaired after opening the same as after few days/one month the laptop stopped working. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to replace the laptop of the complainant with new one with same price and same model and the complainant is directed to return the defective laptop to the OPs at the time of replacement of new laptop. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.8000/- as compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
03.08.2022 Member Member President
