CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/137/22

                                                                                                            Date of Institution:-20.05.2022

                                                                                                            Order reserved on:26.04.2023

                                                                                                          Date of Decision:-12.05.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Ritika Ranga,

D/o Sh. Bhagat Singh,

R/o RZ 22, Netaji Lane, M.D. Marg,

Gali No.18, New Gopal Nagar,

Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043

Through her Attorney

Mr. Rahul                                                                        .......Complainant

VERSUS

1. New Berco Electronics

Through its Manager/AR

At: Opposite Metro Pillar No.654,

Uttam Nagar, Delhi – 110059

2. ASUS (India) Private Limited

Through its Directors/Managing Directors/AR

Registered office at:

402, 4^th Floor, Supreme Chambers,

17/18, Shah, Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road,

Andheri West, Mumbai,

Maharashtra – 400058 .…..Opposite parties

O R D E R

Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. The Complainant, who is a student, approached OP-1 with her father, desirous of purchasing a laptop for her online classes in December 2020.
2. The Complainant alleges that OP-1 allured her to purchase a laptop manufactured by OP-2. She paid the consideration amount of Rs.47,000/- to OP-1 for the recommended laptop, believing OP-1's high praise of the OP-2 brand. OP-1 issued a Tax Invoice for the said purchase, a copy of which the complaint has annexed as (Annexure-C-2).

3. The Complainant states that the laptop developed several defects like hanging issues, slow boot time, black screen, and touchpad malfunction. Due to these issues, the Complainant struggled to complete her educational assignments and other significant work. The Complainant and her father visited the OP-1 shop and informed OP-1 of her ongoing issues with the laptop. She states in her complaint that OP-1 examined the laptop and upgraded her software, after which the laptop in question was functioning smoothly for a few weeks.

4. However, it again developed similar defects, and this time the brother of the Complainant and AR of the Complainant in the present complaint approached OP-1. He waited for 4-5 hours on the insistence of OP-1, who rectified the defects in the laptop and returned it to her brother, assuring him that she would face no further issues with her computer.

5. But when the laptop remained defective, the brother of the Complainant revisited the OP-1 shop on 22.07.2021 and lodged a complaint in OP-2 authorised service Centre vide complaint case ID. No. A2107054720-0002. Thereafter the service centre executive of OP-2 Sh. Ajay Kumar visited the Complainant's residence on 24.07.2021. He examined the Complainant's laptop and informed her that the serial numbers of the laptop's internal parts did not match the serial number mentioned on the Complainant's laptop.

6. Therefore, he refused to render his service and telephonically informed his senior executive. The Complainant has annexed the screenshot of the different serial numbers as Annexure-C-3. She has also annexed the job sheet or ASUS Product Service Form generated on 22.07.2021 by OP-2 Service executive duly signed by Sh. Rahul Ranga with his comments regarding the defective laptop and mismatched serial number on 24.07.2021 on page no.18 of her complaint. The senior executive of OP-1 service centre informed the Complainant that the serial numbers can only mismatch if the internal parts have been replaced by parts not procured from the manufacturer.

7. The Complainant approached OP-1 on 25.07.2021 and confronted the seller OP-1 about this fact, as OP-1 had rectified the Complainant's laptop twice but had failed to inform the Complainant if OP-1 had replaced any parts in her laptop in question. She requested OP-1 to either replace her laptop or refund her consideration amount, but OP-1 flatly refused to address the grievance of the complaint. Thus, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 31.08.2021 to the OPs. (Annexure C-4, C-5 & C-6) are the copy of the legal notice and postal receipts, respectively, to no avail.

8. Feeling cheated, the Complainant filed the present complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency-in-service qua OP-1. She has prayed for a replacement of her laptop or, alternatively, a refund of Rs.47,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. The Complainant has also sought directions to the OP to pay a sum of 1 lakh towards mental agony and tension suffered by her and Rs.11,000/- towards litigations cost.

9. Notice was issued to the OP to file their reply. OP-1 & 2 appeared on 06.07.2022 and received a fresh copy of the complaint. When neither of the OPs filed their reply until 03.02.2023, both OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.02.2023. The Complainant filed her ex-parte evidence on the next date, reiterating what she had already stated in her complaint. She said she does not wish to file any further written arguments.

10. We have heard her final arguments carefully and have perused the documents she has proved on record to corroborate her averments. In our view, the Complainant purchased a laptop in December 2020 manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1, paying a consideration amount of Rs.47,000/- to OP-1 for the same. OP-1 generated a Tax Invoice, a copy of which she has annexed with her complaint as Ex.CW-1/1. Due to the Covid-19 situation, she needed the laptop for educational purposes, as all classes were online. The Complainant alleges that the laptop started showing defects from the beginning however has not specified from which date or month. She approached OP-1, the seller, to rectify the defects in her laptop. OP-1 upgraded her laptop software, which worked satisfactorily for a few weeks, as per her statement in her complaint.

11. However, the same defects as outlined by her in her complaint, like black screen, slow boot time, laptop hanging, and touchpad malfunction, began troubling her again, due to which her work suffered. This time her brother and AR in the present complaint Sh. Rahul Ranga visited the OP-1 shop, where the defects in the laptop were rectified/repaired. He was assured that no further issues would develop.

12. When the defects did not get removed from the Complainant's laptop Sh. Rahul registered a complaint through OP-1 with the authorised service centre of OP-2 on 22.07.2021. A service engineer visited the Complainant's residence on 24.07.2021. After examining the computer, he refused to rectify and service the Complainant's machine. He informed the Complainant that the serial number of the laptop's internal parts in question did not match the serial numbers of the Complainant's laptop. A job sheet was generated towards the service visit, a copy of which is annexed on page no.18 of the Complainant. The Complainant has also annexed the screenshot of the mismatched serial numbers. (Ex.CW-1/2).

13. The Complainant confronted OP-1 on 25.07.2021, who had rectified her laptop twice by her own admission. When OP-1 refused to replace or refund the Complainant's laptop and denied any wrongdoing, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 31.08.2021 but received no reply to the same and hence this complaint.

14. Since OP's are ex-parte, we have no reason to disbelieve the Complainant's unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony, who has annexed documents to corroborate her statements as made on the record.

15. However, in our considered view, the Complainant had neither mentioned any deficiency on the part of OP-2 in her complaint nor has she impleaded the service centre as a party in her complaint. Even in her prayer clause, as given in her complaint, she has not sought any relief from OP-2. Hence, we do not find OP-2 liable in the present complaint as OP-2 service centre inspected the laptop of the Complainant when they received the Complainant's service request. We, therefore, absolve OP-2 from any liability, if any, found in this complaint.
16. So far as OP-1, we feel that even if the Complainant approached OP-1 to repair her defective laptop, OP-1 is only the seller of different brands of laptops. They should not have accepted the Complainant's request to fix her computer and guided her to lodge a complaint with the laptop manufacturer in the 1^st instance itself.

17. Further, OP-1 chose not to appear and contest the present complaint even after receiving a copy of the complaint for reasons best known to them. A bare perusal of Ex.CW-1/2, annexed with the Complainant, are the screenshots of the mismatched serial numbers of the internal parts and the laptop. The Tax Invoice generated by OP-1 clarifies that OP-1 while repairing the Complainant's laptop, replaced parts which were not in their purview of work. This, in our view, is tantamount to deficiency-of-service U/S 2(11) of the Act as given below-

Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines Deficiency of Service as “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes

(a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and

(b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.”

18. Hence, allowing the complaint, we find OP-1 deficient-in-service and direct OP-1 to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the used laptop, along with Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, including litigation costs.

• Order be given dasti to both parties.
• The file be consigned to the record room thereafter.