Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/144

M/s Sportz Enertainment Media - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Creative Computer - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Sharma Adv.

07 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  144 dated 20.08.2020.                                                       Date of decision: 07.06.2024. 

 

M/s. SPORTZ Entertainment Media, through its Proprietor Sartaj Khan, resident of House No.1141/3, Taj Ganj, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Creative Computers, 110-A, Kochar Market, Model Gram, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., 402, 4^th Floor, Supreme Chambers,        17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058, through its Director/M.D./Manager.
3. M/s. JBS Computers, IInd Floor, Sukhmani Tower, Kochar Market, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory. 98149-57930. PIN Code:141002.
4. F1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd., 259/1, BXIX Ground Floor, Hotel Batra Palace, Opposite Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001, through its Director/M.D./Manager. Phone No.0161-4850600.                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is running his business for self employment under the name and style of M/s. SPORTS Entertainment Media. On 17.09.2019 he purchased one Asus Laptop from OP1 vide invoice No.761 for Rs.67,000/- for his personal use and for use of his younger brother for his studies. There was one year guarantee against the said laptop. The complainant stated the he shocked and surprised on the next day of its purchase as the laptop started giving problem due to working of keyboard. The complainant made complaint to OP1 regarding the said defect upon which OP1 told that it is a normal wear and tear and advised to take the laptop to the service center of OP2 i.e. OP3. The complainant took the laptop to OP3 and officials of OP3 asked him to deposit the laptop for repairs. After 1-2 days, the laptop was returned to the complainant with assurance that the laptop is defect free. The complainant further stated that within 5-6 days the problem of Graphic Card occurred in laptop regarding which he took the laptop to OP3  who took the laptop in their possession for 15-16 days and returned back the same to the complainant with assurance that the laptop has been returned to the complainant satisfactorily and will give no problem.

                   However, after some days, problem of Driver in the laptop occurred and on asking of OP1, the complainant took the same to OP3 who got the same for repairs. The officials of OP3 returned the laptop to the complainant with assurance that the defect in the laptop has been cured and it will not give any problem in future. But the laptop suffered the problem of Driver number of times and every time the complainant took the same to OP3 for repairs and also complained the mater to OP1 number of times. On 14.07.2020, the complainant deposited the laptop with OP3 who assured the complainant to repair the laptop to his satisfaction. On 21.07.2020, when the complainant visited OP3 they returned the laptop to the complainant stating that the defect in the laptop could not be cured. Then the complainant visited OP1 who advised that there is some latent/manufacturing defect in the laptop which cannot be cured and asked the complainant to approach OP4 for replacement of the laptop as the same was under warranty. On 21.07.2020, the complainant deposited the laptop with OP4 but on 22.07.2020, when the complainant approached OP4, they refused to redress his grievance and flatly refused to listen the complainant. Since then the laptop is lying with OP4. The complainant further stated that he purchased the said laptop for studies of his younger brother and due to defect in the laptop, his brother could not pursue his studies. The complainant claimed to have suffered physical and mental pain, agony etc. due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for which they are liable to compensate him. The complainant got served legal notice dated 22.07.2020 to the OPs through Sh. Sunil Sharma, Advocate but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to replace the defective laptop with a new one free from any defect with extended guarantee and warranty and also to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP1, OP3 and OP4 despite service and as such, OP1, OP3 and OP4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.04.2021.

                   Notice sent to OP2 received back undelivered with report “Not Claimed” which amounts to refusal to take notice and as such, OP2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.09.2021.

                   However, Sh. I.S. Sibia, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OP4 along with application to join the proceedings which was allowed vide order dated 22.09.2021.

                   OP4 filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant being not come to this Commission with clean hands; suppression of material facts etc. OP4 stated that it is an authorized service center of OP2. On 21.07.2020, the complainant approached OP4 for repair of his laptop make ASUS and the laptop was under warranty at that time. OP4 claimed to have removed the default from the said laptop free of costs and it started working properly. OP4 tried to contact the complainant many times to collect the laptop but in vain and finally sent Email dated 05.08.2020 to the complainant with request to collect the laptop. On 07.08.2020, the complainant refused to collect the laptop from the office of OP4. OP4 further stated that it sent Email dated 20.11.2020 to the complainant with request to collect the laptop but he again refused to collect the same. According to OP4, the laptop is in working condition and running very smooth but the complainant had not come to collect the laptop intentionally. OP4 had provided its due service.

                   On merits, OP4 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP4 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Sh. Harinder Singh Narang, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OP2 along with application for setting aside exparte order dated 22.09.2021 and vide order dated 10.08.2023, OP2 was allowed to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-.

                   Thereafter, none turned up on behalf of OP2 and OP4 for concluding the evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and imposition of costs of Rs.500/- upon OP2. As such, OP2 and OP4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.02.2024.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 is the copy of bill dated 17.09.2019, Ex. C2 is the copy of ASUS Product Service Form dated 21.07.2020, Ex. C3 is the copy of online warranty status, Ex. C4 is the copy of terms and conditions of the product downloaded online, Ex. C5 is the copy of Adhaar Card of the complainant, Ex. C6 is the copy of legal notice dated 22.07.2020, Ex. C7 to Ex. C10 are the postal receipts, Ex. C11 and Ex. C12 are the copies of text messages, Ex. C13 and Ex. C14 are the copies of visiting card of OP1 cum receipt of laptop, Ex. C15 is the copy of reply to legal notice dated 27.08.2020 submitted by OP4, Ex. C16 is the copy of reply to legal notice dated 27.08.2020 submitted by OP4 and closed the evidence.             

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant as well as written statement filed by OP4.

6.                From the close scrutiny of the complaint, affidavit and documents, it can easily be gathered that the complainant purchased one Laptop make ASUS FX505 from OP1 for Rs.67,000/- from OP1vide bill dated 17.09.2019 Ex. C1. OP2 is the manufacturer of the said laptop whereas OP3 and OP4 are the authorized service centres of OP2 a Company. However, problems started occurring in the laptop on the very next day after its purchase. OP3 rectified the defect in the laptop and handed over the same to the complainant. After few days, the complainant again faced problem of Graphic Card in the laptop for which the complainant again visited OP3 and OP3 after rectification of the defect returned the same to the complainant. Again after some times, problem in Driver occurred in laptop many times which was rectified by OP3. On 14.07.2020, the complainant gave the laptop to OP3 for repair but when on 21.07.2020 the complainant visited OP3, it returned the laptop to the complainant by saying that laptop could not be cured. On asking of OP1, the complainant approached OP4 for replacement of laptop being it was in warranty period and handed over laptop to OP4 on 21.07.2020. On 22.07.2020, OP4 refused to redress the grievance of the complainant and finally refused to replace the laptop and since then the laptop is lying with OP4.

7.                The core issue of replacement of the laptop remained unresolved even though the OPs were under an obligation to replace the laptop as the same was within the warranty period. Every time, the complainant took the laptop to OP3 and OP4 who assured that the defect will be removed since the laptop is under warranty period but the OPs failed to remove the defect. It is the settled law that whenever a brand new product is sold to the customer, there is an implied contract carrying a warranty that the product being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.

8.                It is evident in the case in hand that after very first day of its purchase, the complainant observed defect in the laptop and thereafter, on many occasions the defect occurred in the laptop and every time it was rectified by OP3 but the laptop in question was not repaired to his satisfaction. As per Product Service Form Ex. C2 dated 21.07.2020 the laptop was handed over to OP4 it is mentioned that “Under diagnose. Need to update.”A person who had purchased a new product is not expected to visit again and again to get the defect removed. Despite the repair of laptop many times, the defect has not been fully removed and as such, the complainant has right to file the present complaint. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the product. This product was having one year warranty. The complainant repeatedly approached the opposite parties for replacement of the laptop. Even written notice Ex. C6 was also sent on 22.07.2020 but nothing favourable came from the opposite parties.

9.                In reply dated 27.08.2020 given by OP4 to legal notice dated 22.07.2020 sent by the complainant, OP4 in para No.5 has admitted the fact regarding occurrence of defect in the product in question and its repair as on 21.09.2019 the keyboard was replaced, on 18.10.2019 main board was replaced, on 22.06.2020 recovery of s/w was done, on 27.02.2020 the main board was replaced and on 21.07.2020 the part awaited. The reply to legal notice of OP4 shows the laptop in question developed snag within few days of its purchase as the complainant purchased the laptop on 17.09.2019 and he faced the problem in the same firstly on 21.09.2019, then on 18.10.2019, on 22.06.2020, on 27.02.2020 and further as per version of the complainant the laptop is lying with OP4 since 21.07.2020. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if OP1 and OP2, the seller as well as manufacturer of laptop are directed to refund the billed amount of Rs.67,000/- as per Ex. C1 after deducting depreciation value of 25% to the complainant as well as to pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The complaint against OP3 and OP4 is dismissed.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OP1 and OP2 shall refund the billed amount of Rs.67,000/- as per Ex. C1 after deducting depreciation value of 25%, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till date of actual payment. OP1 and OP2 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Liability of OP1 and OP2 is joint and several. The compliance of the order be made within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the complaint as against OP3 and OP4 is hereby dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.06.2024.

Gobind Ram.