STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.667 of 2009

Noble Informatique through its Prop. Sanjay Makker, S/o Sh. J.R. Makkar, SCO No.61, Sector 20, Chandigarh.

                                   ..…Appellant.

Versus

N. K. Bai, #12 Wing Air Force, Chandigarh (Mob.No.9876465850).

                                    ..…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY: Sh. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the appellant.

                        None for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.                     This appeal has been filed by the OP against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 30.10.2009 passed in complaint case No.1104 of 2009 vide which the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one laptop from OP Make–Acer, Model Travel Mate 5720, on 18.10.2008 (wrongly typed as 18.10.2009 in the impugned order) for Rs.39,000/-.  It was averred that at the time of purchase of said Laptop, the OP told that the laptop in question carried three years warranty.  However, the said three years warranty period was neither mentioned in the bill nor in any other documents supplied with the laptop rather it was told that the warranty can be availed of on production of bill.  The complainant also averred that in the month of July, 2009 when he faced a problem in the DVD (RW) of the said laptop, a complaint was lodged with Acer Customer Care for repair and when they were informed about the three years warranty, the same was denied and the complainant was asked to show a written document in respect of three years warranty.  As per the complainant, he took up the matter with OP but to no avail. Alleging the delaying tactics of OP in not supplying the three years warranty document as a deficiency in service on its part, the complainant had filed complaint before the learned District Forum.

3.                     The version of OP is that the complainant had not impleaded Acer Company i.e. the manufacturer, as party to the present case from whom he could get his three years warranty by just entering the serial number on their website http://apn.acer.co.in under the column of “WARRANTY VALIDATION” (Ann.R-1).  As per the OP, the complainant had not approached the Acer Company through their website as advised.  OP further stated that complainant was liable to ask for his three years warranty only from the manufacturer i.e. Acer Company and not from the OP as the manufacturer i.e.Acer Company did not allow the OP to take extended warranties on behalf of the buyers, as extended warranties were for specific models, which were sold and not lying with the Sellers(OP). Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                     The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint was of the view that the dealer/OP was the only person, who in the market came in direct contact with the complainant and it was only the dealer, who assured the complainant about the quality of the goods sold and in case the complainant had any problem with the product purchased from the dealer, then it was obligatory on the part of the OP to send the product/laptop to the manufacturer for necessary repairs under warranty, which in the instant case had not been done by the OP, which made the complainant to run from post to pillar to get his laptop repaired.   The learned District Forum referred to the judgment of this State Commission rendered in Appeal Case No.71 of 2005,decided on 28.3.2005, reported in II(2005) CPJ 781. In the view of the learned District Forum, the act of OP in not mentioning the period of warranty on the bill in respect of the product sold to the complainant or non-supply of warranty card thereof amounted to unfair trade practice.  In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to rectify the defects in the laptop and deliver it to the complainant in properly functioning condition to his satisfaction without charging anything. It also directed the OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2100/- as compensation for the harassment besides Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OP was made liable to pay the said amount along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing present complaint i.e. 5.8.2009 till actual payment.  It was made clear by the learned District Forum that in case the laptop in question seemed to be non-repairable, then the same should be replaced with a new one of the same configuration & model and supply it to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 30 days. 

5.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, OP has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order and dismissing the complaint. Sh. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant where none appeared on behalf of the respondent. A perusal of zimini order dated 2.3.2010 shows that final notice to appear before the Bench was sent to the respondent wherein it was made clear that in case he did not turn up, the matter shall be heard exparte. The service of notice, which was sent through registered A.D was awaited till 21.4.2010 and on 21.4.2010, when nobody turned up on behalf of the respondent, he was proceeded against exparte. Record of complaint case was also received from the District Forum concerned.

6.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7.                     The only issue to be settled in this appeal is whether is any deficiency in service on the part of OP in not supplying the warranty document to the complainant? It is admitted that the complainant purchased one laptop from OP Make–Acer, Model Travel Mate 5720, on 18.10.2009 for Rs.39,000/- and there  had been a problem in its DVD (RW) and a complaint was lodged with Acer Care for its repair. It is seen from the copy of the Retail Invoice placed on the record of District Forum by the complainant that there is a note on this Retail Invoice stating “WARRANTY AS PER COMPANY NORMS” but nothing was supplied to him along with this Retail Invoice. Even there is no mention on the Retail Invoice as to for how much period the said Laptop was covered under warranty. The complainant has also annexed a copy of Acer Note Book along with his complaint wherein the warranty for the Laptop purchased by the him is mentioned to be 3 years. Thus, it cannot be said that the Laptop purchased by the complainant was not having a warranty of 3 years. Thus, the version of OP that the warranty was only to be supplied by the manufacturer and not by it cannot be accepted. The OP has failed to supply any warranty document to the complainant and by just mentioning on the Retain Invoice ‘WARRANCY AS PER COMPANY NORMS’, OP cannot escape its liability to rectify the defect in the Laptop free of cost as it has been established that the warranty for the said Laptop is for 3 years. Thus, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the act of OP of not mentioning the period of warranty on the bill in respect of the product sold to the complainant and non supply of warranty card clearly amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. 

8.                     In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

9.                     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

5^th August, 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

Ad/-