Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/81/2016

K.Sathyapal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Asus Technology Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V.T.Narendiran and P.K.Rajangam

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 15.12.2015

                                                                 Date of Order         : 09.09.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER -II

                                                     

C.C.No. 81/ 2016

THIS FRIDAY  9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

K. Sathyapal,

No.39-A Nehru Street,

Udumalpet,

Tirupur District.                                             .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, 4-C, Supreme Chambers 17/18, Veera Desai Road, Industrial Area, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 072.   2. M/s. Regenersis (India) Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Digicomp Complete Solution Ltd.), No.4, Ceebros Centre, 3rd Floor, Adjacent to Hotel Ambassidor Pallava, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                             .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant           :    M/s. V.T.Narendiran & another           

For the opposite parties      :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.7,416/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 15.4.2016. 

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’ counsel.

4.     The complainant contended that he purchased Asus Atom B Note Book Computer from “Reliance Digital” on 3.4.2015 manufactured by Asus.   He could not register the product with Asus Net work in order to access the soft ware updates even though the unit was working.    The warranty of the product, as per the Asus Global online system had expired on 13.11.2014 even though the product was sold as a new one.    

5.     The complainant further contended that after 10 days when the screen was kept closed the computer did not go to sleep mode and had resulted in a screen crack due to overheating of the monitor.    On the instruction of the 1^st opposite party he handed over the product to the 2^nd opposite party who concluded that the screen crack is a “Customer Inflicted Damage”.   Since the Laptop is an essential to carry out his professional duties he opted to repair the product under protest and paid a sum of Rs.7,416/- for the replacement of the screen.  While replacing the screen the 2^nd opposite party observed that the charger was defective and replaced the charger.   When the unit was handed over by the 2^nd opposite party it was still not going to sleep mode when the screen was closed.    Again he handed over the unit to the 2^nd opposite party they replaced the key board.    Again when he found that the same defect continued he informed the opposite parties and the authorized service agent provided video regarding of the demonstration of defect to the 1^st opposite party.    But the defect was not rectified.   Hence the product is not a good quality and has manufacturing defect, hence he sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 7.7.2015 and the same has been received by them and the 2^nd opposite party gave an evasive reply and not bothered to replace the product.   As such the complainant had suffered great hardship.  Hence the complainant had filed the above complaint claiming refund a sum of Rs.7,416/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

6.     The grievance of the complainant is that when he purchased a Laptop on 3.4.2015 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party found that as per the Asus Global Online system the warranty of the product expired on 13.11.2014 but it was sold as a new product and 10 days later when the screen was closed it did not go to sleep mode and resulted in a screen crack due to overheating of the monitor.   But the 2^nd opposite party the authorized service centre demanded cost for replacement of the screen the complainant paid the same under protest and still the product did not go to sleep mode and hence there is manufacturing defect in the product.  

7.     With respect of the grievance of the complainant that as per Asus Global Online system the warranty of the product expired on 13.11.2014,  apart from the date mentioned in the warranty column which the complainant relied he has not filed any other proof to establish his contention.   Moreover if it is so he ought to have taken steps immediately for replacement of the product.   Whereas it is found from the job sheets i.e. Ex.A2 he had given the product to the 2^nd opposite party for repair due to crack in the screen and due to lap top not going to sleep mode.   As such the contention of the complainant  that the  product was sold after warranty period is not acceptable.   Moreover it is pertinent to note that the claim of the complainant is not for refund of the cost of Laptop nor replacement of the laptop.

8.     The 2^nd grievance of the complainant that 10 days after the date of purchase the Laptop did not go to sleep mode and resulted in screen crack and when he requested to replace the screen the 2^nd opposite party demanded cost for replacement when it is under warranty period.   It is found from Ex.A2 job sheet dated 20.4.2015 that the screen cracked, damaged while working.   As per terms and conditions of the warranty in the job sheet it reveals that physical damage does not cover warranty and cannot be replaced.   Moreover the complainant himself admitted that he had paid Rs.7,416/- for replacement of screen i.e. Ex.A1 and the contention of the complainant that he had paid the cost with protest is not acceptable, since there is no such endorsement in the bill.    As such the relief of claim of refund of the cost of Rs.7416/- paid towards screen is not sustainable.

9.     However main grievance of the complainant is that   even after repair of the product by the 2^nd opposite party the defect of the Laptop i.e. not going to sleep mode was not rectified.    The complainant also contended that when he informed the same to the opposite parties and the service agents provided video recording of the demonstration of the defect to the 1^st opposite party the problem was not solved.   With respect of this grievance it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced any such proof before this forum.   Moreover the complainant had not produced any expert opinion report that the product is not going to sleep mode nor had taken any steps to produce the Laptop before this forum to substantiate it.    Furthermore it is also evidenced through Ex.A5 i.e. the reply notice of the 2^nd opposite party that they had clearly stated the service rendered by them towards defect in the product such as replacement of Adopter, Keyboard Module, without any cost which is not denied by the complainant and returned to him  in working condition.  It is also pertinent to note that the complainant had signed the job sheets while taking delivery of the product.   Ex.A2 i.e. the job sheet dated 11.8.2015 also reveals that no trouble found.   As such the contention of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the product is not sustainable since he had failed to establish the same through documents.  

10.    On perusal of Ex.A1 it also reveals that the complainant is not the purchaser of the product.   Whereas on perusing job sheet and other documents it is found that they are in the name of the complainant and as such it appears that the complainant has filed the complaint as beneficiary.  Even if it is so the complainant ought to have stated the facts in the complaint but he failed to do so.  

11.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant had failed to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the product and therefore he is not entitled for refund of amount of Rs.7416/-paid towards replacement of screen since it was not covered under warranty as discussed above.   As such he is also not entitled for other reliefs sought for in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   No cost.  

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

        Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this  9^th   day of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

 

Ex.A1- 23.6.2015 – Copy of Invoice

Ex.A2-    -           - Copy of Service Charge receipt.

Ex.A3- 7.7.2015   - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A4- 12.7.2015 – Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A5- 15.7.2015. –Copy of reply by the opposite party.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.