DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 1st day of June, 2018
C.D. Case No. 80 of 2017
Kumari Uttam Nayak
D/o Nimein Ch Nayak
At/Po: Kalei
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
………Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
1. The Acer India Pvt. Ltd.
Embassy Height, 6th Floor
No- 13 Magrath Road
Next to Hasmat Hospital
Bangalore- 560025
2. M/S Computer Mahal
At: Thana Chhack, Naya Bazar
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
………………Opposite Parties
Advocate for Complainant: Sri Radhakanta Nayak & Associates
For O.Ps: Sri Ananda Shankar Das, Authorized Person
Date of Hearing: 22.05.2018
Date of Order: 01.06.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
The dispute arose out of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the O.Ps.
The back ground facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant had purchased a Acer Make Laptop from OP No. 2 dt. 06.11.2016 on payment of cash of Rs 24,000/- vide money receipt No- 6673 for her personal use. But on 21.11.2016, (within 15 days from the date of purchase) the complainant noticed that the pictures on the screen is flickering, key pad is not functioning properly and the processor of the laptop gets heated excessively while in operation and also a noisy sound was also coming from the processor. The complainant having seen the defects in the said laptop bearing No- ESI-531-C2 MU/CDC/4GB/500GB and SL No- MXMI 8SI 00953414D 566600, informed/reported the problems to OP No. 2 on dt. 21.11.2016 from whom the laptop was purchased. The said OP retained the laptop for a couple of days and got it repaired in changing the mother board and returned the said laptop on realization of repairing charges from the complainant. The said laptop gave rise to similar problems as it was before the change of mother board which was brought to the notice of OP No. 2 during 1st week of October, 2017 who advised the complainant to contact the customer care of the company (OP No. 1) and accordingly complainant informed the problems to customer care cell of the company who deputed a service engineer on 17.10.2017. The service engineer being accompanied by a staff of OP No. 2 reached at the door of the complainant and after a brief examination of the said laptop the service engineer informed the complainant to take the laptop for a month as the repairing was not possible instantly and when the complainant demanded a job card or acknowledgement receipt as a token of receipt of the laptop, the representative of both the O.Ps denied to comply the demand and took away the said laptop without any acknowledgement. On dt. 18.10.2017 the said staff of OP No. 2 reached at complainants house and returned back the laptop with an information that the present laptop would be replaced by new one within a week. Relying on the version of the staff of OP No. 2, complainant took back the laptop and did not get any result for replacement of the defective laptop for weeks together. The O.Ps neither acted upon according to their commitment nor responded to the notice of the complainant issued on dt. 08.10.2017 and the complainant, being aggrieved with such activities of O.Ps and finding no other way other than to file this case in this Forum praying for replacement of the laptop and refund of repairing charges together with cost and compensation.
OP No. 1 objected the points of allegation and contested the case by engaging an authorized person to conduct the case. OP No. 2, although received the notice issued by the Forum, did not prefer to appear before the Forum even not submitted any written version in his defense as a result of which he was set ex-parte.
OP No. 1 submitted written version in stating that the present dispute is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed the material facts and has not come to Forum with clean hands and the O.Ps have not caused any deficiency of service. Further OP No. 1 has submitted that OP No. 2 is not the authorized service center of OP No. 1 and it is admitted by the complainant that the mother board of case laptop was replaced by OP No. 2 which is clear violation of warranty conditions. It is also submitted that the laptop was purchased on 06.11.2016 but the complainant lodged by the complaint with the company on 10.10.2017 which is 338 days after the date of purchase. As the OP No. 1 has attended every call of the complainant and provided service without causing delay, the question of deficiency of service does not arise. Hence the allegations made in the complaint against this OP No. 1 does not hold good and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
We have gone through the complaint written version, perused materials on record and observed as under.
1. Admittedly the complainant has purchased the laptop from OP No. 2 for a consideration of Rs 24,000/- on payment of cash vide cash Memo/Receipt No- 6673 on dt. 06.11.2016. It is also admitted by the OP No. 1 to have attended the complainant for providing service after receipt of complaint through customer care of the company. Leaving aside the aforesaid facts, the OP No. 1 has disputed all other points of allegation made in the complaint.
OP has raised objection on the point that there is no deficiency of service on his part and as the complainant has concealed the actual fact about change of mother board and has repaired the laptop within the warranty period in an unauthorized service centre which is a clear violation of warranty conditions. Therefore the dispute is not maintainable in the society. On the contrary the complainant challenged the points of objection raised by the O.Ps in stating that when the defects in the disputed laptop was noticed by the complainant in about 15 days from the date of purchase, she immediately, on the same day, rushed to the business place of OP No. 2 and detailed the defects observed by her. OP No. 2 advised her to leave the laptop with him for examination and, if required, for repairing. Being a local leady, the complainant on good faith left the laptop with OP No. 2 with a verbal assurance to get the defects corrected within a couple of days. It cannot be denied that the OP No. 2 is the authorized dealer of OP No. 1 who is selling and also promoting the sales of the Acer Company Products adopting various marketing strategies and therefore there was nothing to disbelieve the said OP when he advised the complainant to leave laptop with him for necessary checking and repairing. The OP No. 1, simple saying “OP No. 2 is not the authorized service provider of OP No. 1” cannot keep himself away from his responsibilities and liabilities and there is no specific indication/mention in the warranty conditions of the laptop to that effect. Hence such plea of OP No. 1 does not hold good and as such the OP No. 1 is liable for compensation as well replacement of defective laptop with new one.
Heard both the parties to this dispute case and perused all materials on record. It is believed that the OP No. 2 has played mischief with the complainant and has also misguided the complainant in not disclosing the truth as to he is not the authorized service provider of the company (OP No. 1) even he has also not disclosed the facts of change of mother board of the laptop before the service engineer who promised the complainant to replace the defective laptop with new one. Further when the matter was disclosed by the complainant about the change of mother board and repairing of laptop was done by OP No. 2 for his personal gain, what steps have been taken by OP No. 1 to prevent or refrain OP No. 2 from such illegal activities. Such action of OP No. 1 is considered as an encouragement to OP No. 2 who is resorting to illegal and unfair trade practice. Further it is also observed that even though the business place of OP No. 2 is located/situated within 200 meters distance from the Forum premises it is believed that the said OP does not care the notice of the Forum that is why he did not prefer to appear and submit written version on the allegations of the complainant. It cannot be ignored that there is nexus between the O.Ps and might have conspired not to settle the claim of the complainant as a result of which OP No. 2 has deliberately ignored to appear before the Forum. For this reason OP No. 1 cannot be left free from his liabilities because if inaction ans in appropriate action.
Taking the facts of foregoing paragraphs in to consideration and critically analyzing the facts from different angles, this Forum holds that the O.Ps are liable for replacement of defective laptop with new one and OP No. 2 is responsible for mental agony and harassment. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 on contest. OP No. 2 is directed to replace the defective laptop with new one of same brand and model or pay the cost as mentioned in the sales invoice/cash memo which shall be reimbursed by OP No. 1 on claim by OP No. 2. OP No. 2 is also directed to refund the service charges realized by him while repairing the laptop and change of mother board at the first instance. Further OP No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. This order must be complied by both the O.Ps within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which additional charges @ Rs 50/- per each day of default shall be paid by OP No. 2 positively.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 1st day of June, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
