District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 452/2021
Date of Institution:07.09.2021
Date of Order:.18.07.2023.
Pankaj Kumar, aged about Years Son of Sh. Arjun Singh, Resident of Hari Vihar, near Lal Kothi, Tempo Stand, Subhash Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
….Complainant……
Versus
1. M/s. Asus Computer International, 402, 4th floor, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 058 through its Directors/Principal Officers.
2. M/s. Tech Connect Retail Private Limited, 704-704, 7th floor, Magnum Tower-1, Achiview Drive, Sector-58, Golf Course, Extension Road, Gurugram (Haryana) – 122011 through its Directors/Principal Officers.
3. M/s. Viaan Services, Shop No. 201, 2nd floor, Maharaja Aggarsain Complex, Ambedkar Chowk, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad through its proprietor.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh.J.S.Bhati, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2022.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one laptop from the respondent No. 2 through Online on 23.12.2020 for Rs. 58,390/- vide Invoice No. PL-F265255001 T-4/S-84519813981(1) dated 23.12.2020. At the time of selling the said laptop, the respondent No. 2 stated that there was full guarantee on account of any defect in the said laptop, upto the period of One Year from the date of its purchase. After purchasing the above said laptop, the complainant started to use the same, but he became very surprise, when he found that the laptop was defective one. Thus It was clear that the said laptop was defective one, hence the complainant visited the respondent No. 3 and showed them the above said defective laptop and asked them to get exchange the abovesaid laptop with other one on 18.1.2021,at that time the respondent No. 3 kept the said defective laptop with it and assured that within one week they would get exchange the same, but to the surprise of the complainant the respondent No. 3 handed over the said defective laptop to the complainant, but when the complainant again started to use the same, the same was not working in proper manner. Hence the complainant again visited them on 23.2.2021 then respondent No. 3 again kept the said defective laptop and after some they again returned back the same, but the said laptop was not working in a proper manner. Hence again on 13.3.2021 the complainant again visited them and then again 01.6.2021 but at that time the respondents flately refused to get repair the said laptop. Besides this, from time to time the complainant made complaints on line on different dates i.e. 24.5.2021, 28.5.2021, 31.5.2021, 7.6.2021 to all the respondents but they did not give any response to legitimate requests of the complainant. Even today the said laptop was not working and the same was lying with the complainant as un-use. Moreover, the complainant was a student of B.Tech and due to non-availability of the said laptop the complainant has suffered a huge loss on account of his study as well as financial loss. The complainant sent legal notice dated 30.07.2021 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) to get exchange the defective laptop with another new one without claiming any amount from the complainant OR to refund back the cost of the said laptop to the complainant immediately;
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back with the report of refusal. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the Answering Opposite Party submitted that the products sold by the Answering Opposite Party carries manufacturer's warranty. As a reseller, involvement of Answering Opposite Party in the entire transaction was limited only to selling the products of various manufacturers and in the present Complaint, the Manufacturer is Opposite Party No. 1 to 5. It was submitted that there had been no dispute contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act between the Complainant and the Answering Opposite Party as the Answering Opposite Party was not the manufacturer of the product sold to the Complainant and had no facility or knowledge to ascertain whether the product in issue in the present Complaint is defective or has manufacturing defects. It was also submitted that the Complainant himself has admitted in the Content of Para 4 in the present complainant that after using the said laptop for an about months the complainant found that the said. laptop was defective one and it was a manufacturing defect. Then after the complainant was approached to the authorized service center i.e O.P No 3 for his grievance, which was clearly show that the complainant was aware and full knowledge of the fact that the grievance of the Complainant was only against the manufacturer O.P 1 & 3 for not providing after sales service. It was reiterated that Answering Opposite Party was an online reseller registered on Flipkart.com' Answering Opposite Party was not the manufacturer but an online reseller and the products. sold by Answering Opposite Party carry warranty issued/provided by the respective manufacturers against manufacturing defects subject to the terms & conditions determined by the manufacturers only. Irrespective of the warranty provided by the manufacturer, as a goodwill gesture the Opposite Party No. 2 provides 10 (Ten) days return/replacement policy to its customer in case there is any issue with the product which cannot be rectified. However, in the instant matter the Complainant had used the product in issue above a month. Further the Complainant did not even approach Answering Opposite party which leads to irrefutable conclusion that the product in question was working fine not only at the time of purchase but even thereafter, when admittedly the Complainant approached the manufacturer citing some issue in the product. However, in the instant matter it was very pertinent to bring to the notice of this Ld. Forum that the Complainant has tried to deceive this Ld. Forum by not raising specific grievance against specific Opposite Party from whom the Complainant has in actuality contacted for resolution of his alleged grievance. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice issued to opposite party No.3 received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2022.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. Asus Computer International with the prayer to: a) to get exchange the defective laptop with another new one without claiming any amount from the complainant OR to refund back the cost of the said laptop to the complainant immediately. b)pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Pankaj Kumar,, Ex. C-1 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C-2 – legal notice,,Ex.C3 & C4 courier receipts.
On the other hand, Shri K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that written version filed by opposite party No.2 may be read as such evidence on behalf of opposite party NO.2. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the opposite party No.2 has been closed vide order dated 20.4.2023.
8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one laptop from the respondent No. 2 through Online on 23.12.2020 for Rs. 58,390/- vide Invoice No. PL-F265255001 T-4/S-84519813981(1) dated 23.12.2020 vide Ex.C1. After its purchase, the above said laptop had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as on different dates i.e. 24.5.2021, 28.5.2021, 31.5.2021, 7.6.2021 to all the opposite parties ipso facto go to prove that the labtop in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the labtop in question with a new one, subject to return the old laptop within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 18.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
