Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/197/2017

Shailendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manoj Kumar Rohilla

15 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	197/2017
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	15/05/2017

 

                                                

                                                         

Shailendra Kumar r/o 104, Near Temple Basanti Bagh Colony Sai Road Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       Asus India, F1 Info Solutions & Service Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Service Center through his Authorize Signatory/General Manager, SCO 274, 1^st Floor, Sector 32-D, Near Nirmal Cinema, Chandigarh.

 

2.       Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorize Signatory/General Manager, 402, 4^th Floor, 17/18 Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400058.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.M.K.Rohilla ,Adv. for the complainant

                    OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a new Asus Zenfone Max Smartphone  from Gurukripa Trader, District Solan (HP) vide invoice dated 06.09.2016 for  Rs.9,400/-.  After some days the mobile phone started giving problem of network with message “No Sim Card”.  He approached OP No.2 for replacement of the mobile phone but they advised him to approach the service center at Chandigarh.  It has been averred that the mobile phone repaired by OP No.1 vide job sheets dated 21.10.2016 and 05.11.2016 but despite repairs, it was giving the same problems. As such he requested OP No.2 to refund its price but they again advised him to approach OP No.1.  Left with no other alternative, he again approached OP No.1 who repaired the said mobile phone vide job sheet dated 05.12.2016 but the mobile phone was not working properly. Ultimately, OP No.2 sent an engineer on 28.12.2016 with the job sheet (Annexure C-5) and he found the mobile faulty of not caching network and not detecting sim and he even made a report (Annexure C-6).  Finally, he requested OP No.2 to refund the price of the mobile phone vide e-mail (Annexure C-7) and informed that he had purchased a new mobile handset to gain mental peace.  It has further been averred that he filed a case in online Consumer Forum-Jago Grahak Gao with complaint No.102867 but the same was closed due to not providing detail on time as he already mentioned that due to private job,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   he missed the notification from Online Forum.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.04.2017.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has submitted his detailed duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint alongwith a copy of the Invoice dated 06.09.2016 as Annexure C-2 vide which he purchased the mobile phone in question for Rs.9,400/-. The complainant has also placed on record different copies of the jobsheets vide which he landed the mobile phone in question with OP No.1 time and again for rectification of the defect but it failed to rectify the same despite its futile efforts.  The complainant has also placed on record the report of the Engineer as Annexure C-6, from which it is apparent that there was network dropping problem in both the sims of the mobile phone in question.  The complainant also placed on record a copy of e-mails as Annexure C-7 (Colly.) whereby he requested the OPs to refund the price of the mobile phone in question on account of its being defective.  A close perusal of e-mail dated 19.01.2017 sent by the OPs to the complainant shows that they have agreed to replace the mobile phone in question with a brand new device. 
5.           Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to replace the product in question because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product and he has already purchased a new mobile phone. If the replaced product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for him. 
6.           Moreover, the OPs chose not to appear before this Forum.  Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the OPs, the version of the complainant, supported by his duly sworn affidavit and the documentary evidence, must prevail. 
7.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs and the same is accordingly allowed. They are directed as under ;-
   1. To refund Rs.9,400/- i.e. price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant.
   2. To make payment of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.
   3. To make payment of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.
8.           This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till actual payment, besides litigation expenses.
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                     Sd/-

Announced	[RAVINDER SINGH]	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
15/05/2017	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER