Bangalore Urban


Balan G - Complainant(s)


Acer india (pvt) ltd - Opp.Party(s)

in person

25 Aug 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1424/08

Balan G


Acer india (pvt) ltd






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 26.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 25th AUGUST 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1424/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri.Balan G 98/12 Wheeler’s Road Extension, Cook Town, Bengaluru – 560005. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Mrs. Padma Priya, Manager for customer Service, Acer India (Pvt) Ltd., No.873, 2nd Floor, 80 feet Road, Indiranagar 1st Stage, Next to Krishna Temple, Bangalore – 560075. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the cost of Laptop Rs.41,999/- and pay some compensation and damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant purchased one Acer laptop computer for his business purpose from OP. OP promised that it will give the battery back up with 90 – 100 minutes. He trusted the words of the OP. When he started using the same, he was shocked to know that its life only for 45 minutes it went on reducing. Not only that there is to be a heat generation in the said laptop. Under the circumstances complainant was unable to use the said laptop for the purpose for which he purchased it. He immediately contacted the OP on 18.03.2008 and narrated the complaints. Though they replaced the battery the effect was one and the same they are unable to cure the defect with regard to heat generation. Actually the manual guide shows that the battery life is for 2.6 hours. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to detect the defect and cure the same, they are unable to do so. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. His investment went in vain. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was sent by hand. Complainant returned the said notice along with the affidavit stating that OP refused to accept the said notice. Service of notice by refusal is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Acer laptop for a valid consideration of Rs.41,999/- on 21.05.2007. At that time it was told to him that the battery life will be 90 to 100 minutes. When he started using the said laptop for presentation the battery used to fail every now and then, it didn’t give the expected service. Then he contacted the OP on 18.03.2008, OP replaced the battery. Even after the replacement also the life of the battery was hardly for 45 minutes and then it went on reducing 10 to 15 minutes. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 5. It is further contended by the complainant that not only there was battery life problem but there is a heat generation problem. As and when he took the said laptop to OP to repair, they issued the job card but they are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Copies of the job card cum customer call slip are produced which finds support from the evidence now produced by the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. 6. The non participation of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Job sheet themselves will speaks to certain defects in the said laptop. Of course complainant has used the laptop from 21.05.2007 to 18.03.2008. Under such circumstances we don’t think that he is entitled for the refund of the cost of the laptop or for replacement of the same. Merely because OP has not appeared it doesn’t mean that whatever the claim complainant has made is to be granted in toto. 7. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that justice will be met by directing the OP to cure the defect in the said set as noted in the job sheet to the satisfaction of the complainant. With these observations we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to detect the defect and cure the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant as noted in the job sheet with respect to the laptop of the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. If need be by replacing its parts free of cost. Failing in which complainant is entitled to recover the cost of the laptop Rs.41,999/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- from OP. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 25th day of August 2008.) MEMBER PRESIDENT