BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 246 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 26.08.2015.
Date of Order: 01.02.2019.
Rakesh Saini son of Shri Ajay Saini, resident of House No. 80, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Micro Systems, 47 1st Floor, Union Bank of Inida, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani-127021 (Haryana) through its Proprietor.
2. Acer India Limited, 3rd Floor, Devik Tower Adjacent to Kalka Ji Inter Section, 6 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110017 through its Authorized Signatory.
and 2nd address Acer India Pvt. Ltd., SCO 61-62, 3rd Floor, Resident Building, near Neelam Cinema, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri K. R. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
None for the OP No. 1 (defense already struck off).
OP No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of complainant’s case are that he has purchased ACER laptop EI 570 Part Nx. MHAS1.00 NXMHAS1001406033923400 on 19.4.2014 vide invoice No. 7110 for Rs.30,200/- and there was three years guarantee of the same. It is alleged that after one year of purchase some defect developed in the laptop i.e. lining on display screen and due to this defect feature became deem. It is further alleged that the complaint of the same was given to OP No. 1, who advised to make the complaint to OP No.2 i.e. company and then two complaints were made to OP No.2 i.e. on 2.6.2015 & 6.6.2015, No.12931261 registered on 14.6.2015. It is further alleged that a email was also sent to the OP No. 2 on 2.8.2015, but the OP No. 2 has rejected the complaint alleging that the defective part does not tally with their part number. It is further alleged that the complaint was dismissed wrongly by OP No. 2, without giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant. It is further alleged that the defect developed in the said Laptop was manufacturing and the OP No. 2 has wrongly mentioned that the defected part does not tally their number. It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OPs many a times to repair the laptop in question, but to no effect, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 despite service and OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 15.11.2017. On notice to OP No. 1, one Shri Vivek Chaudhary, Proprietor appeared on behalf of OP No. 1, but he failed in filing the written statement and the defense of the OP No. 1 was struck off vide order dated 8.10.2018.
3. Complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in his exparte evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of bill as annexure C1, copy of warranty condition as annexure C2, copy of the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy as Annexure C3 and copy of email as annexure C4. From the bare perusal of the email annexure C4, it is clear that the complainant requested the OPs to repair/replace the laptop, but the OPs have failed in redressing the complaint of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant many times visited to the OP No. 1 to rectify the problem in the Laptop in question, but to no effect and the OPs kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and always made the excuses to avoid to sort-out the problem in the Laptop due to which the education of the complainant was also suffered, for which purpose he has purchased the laptop in question. The OP No.2 has even failed to appear before this Forum despite due service to rebut the case of the complainant and the OP No. 2 has failed in filing written statement despite availing several opportunities. It appears that OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. Thus, the case of the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. It is also considered by us that the complainant has used the Laptop for one year and after that the laptop in question has become defective. Therefore, in such circumstances, in our view, it would be appropriate, if the complainant is awarded 75% amount of the cost of his laptop.
6. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs with the directions to the OPs as under: -
i. The OP No. 2 to pay Rs.22,650/- being 75% amount of the cost of laptop along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
-
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount as directed above to each OP vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 01.02.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 01.02.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
