CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.138/2012

SH. ROHIT SHARMA

S/O SH. MUKESH SHARMA

R/O B-36, EAST GOKALPUR,

DELHI-110094

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                    VS.

1. SPICE HOT SPOT CELLUCOM RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.,

SHIPRA MALL, 1^ST FLOOR,

SHOP NO.33-34, INDRA PURAM

GHAZIABAD-201012

2. SH. PRAVEEN BISHT

(MANAGER, CUSTOMER SUPPORT)

ACER INDIA PVT. LTD.,

3^RD FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER,

ADJACENT TO KALKAJI INTRSECTION,

6, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019

      …………..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                             Date of Order: 23.02.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of complainant is that he purchased a laptop from OP-1 on 24.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.15,799/-, the same was manufactured by OP-2.  The said laptop became defective after one month of its purchase i.e. August 2011.  The matter was brought to the notice of both the OPs.  OP-2 gave a vague reply of same on 27.12.2011 to escape his liability.  Complainant made various telephonic calls to both the OPs to repairs the laptop or to replace same but both the OPs failed to do so.  Even a legal notice dated 16.02.2012 was sent to OPs but nothing happened.  Ultimately this complaint was filed wherein complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of the said laptop i.e. Rs.15,799/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for compensation and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

OP-1 was proceeded ex parte.

OP-2 in the reply took the plea that complainant has not disclosed the problem experienced by him in the aforesaid laptop and also this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the Head Office of OP-2 is situated at Bangalore.  It is further stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.

It is not disputed that complainant purchased the aforesaid laptop from OP-1 on 24.07.2011 with one year warranty.  As per the terms and conditions of said warranty, OP-1 is under the obligation to repair or replace any defective Acer Product or parts thereof covered under the Limited Product Warranty.  It is further stated that the first complaint was lodged on 17.11.2011 i.e. after 116 days of its purchase.  Before that date no complaint was lodged.  Complainant went to authorized service centre of OP-2.  On inspection of the laptop by ASP, it was found that the laptop was under damaged condition much prior to the product having been brought to the service centre.  The physical damage was caused by the complainant.  ASP immediately advised complainant that physical damages caused by the user are not covered under the Limited Product Warranty as per sub clause 1.6 of Clause B.  It is stated that complainant by negligent or by improper use caused damage to the LCD of the Notebook and the same does not come within the warranty clause.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant as well for OP-2 and carefully perused the record.

The case of complainant is that the laptop became defective after one month of its purchase meaning thereby that the laptop became defective in August 2011.  OP has proved that the matter was reported for the first time in the month of November 2011 by complainant and when the laptop was taken to authorized service centre of OP-2.  Laptop was duly inspected by ASP and it was found that the physical damage has been caused to the laptop and the same was not covered under warranty.  Complainant was duly informed by OP-2 vide email dated 27.12.2011 wherein they have reproduced the warranty clause as under:-

“B. Warranty Limitations and exclusions

This limited product warranty does not extend to

1.6 LCD panels, LCD bezel, LCD cover, the chassis(which included the upper case and lower case), cables, connections, key tops physically damaged due to excessive force being applied to it including but not limited to drops and/or spills accidental or otherwise also due to extreme temperature and such other damages caused as a result of neglect or imprint care and handling scratches, imprint/marks, cracks and dents.”

OP has taken a specific plea that complainant has not disclosed the defects which surfaced in the laptop.  Complainant has not disclosed the defects even in the rejoinder or in his statement.  It was for the complainant to prove that the laptop was having manufacturing defects.  Complainant has not even disclosed as to what defect surfaced in the laptop.  OP-2 has categorically stated that there was physical damage caused to the laptop due to negligent act of complainant and the same was not covered in the warranty.  The same was duly brought to the notice of complainant vide email dated 27.12.2011, copy of which is placed on record.  The laptop functioned smoothly for 116 days from the date of its purchase clearly shows that it had no manufacturing defects.  Complainant admitted about the receipt of email dated 27.12.2011.  Complainant has not sent any reply to OP refuting the claim of OP.  Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs hence the complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                                 (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT