Haryana

Karnal

CC/11/2019

Dr. Ajay Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ACER India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goel

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 11 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.03.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 06.02.2020

 

Dr. Ajay Gupta son of Shri Ravi Kumar, House no.358, Sector 13 Ext. Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s ACER India (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director, Having its Registered Office at: Embassy Heights, 6^th floor no.13, Magrath Road, Next to Hasmat Hospital, Bangalore-560025.

2. Horizon System & Comm. (P) Ltd. through its Manager, Having its office at SCO-157, Sector-13, Main Market, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vishal Goyal Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Akhil Bhasin Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Shri Mohinder Saluja Advocate for OP no.2.

                                              

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OP no.1 is a Private Limited Company and OP no.2 is the local dealer of OP No.1 Company. OP no.1 is a leading Manufacturer and Distributors of Computer Hardware and ancillary Products having brand name of ‘ACER’ including Laptops, Desktops and other Computer Devices. The OP no.1 also provides service and support for the products with the help of their call centers and service centers having presence all over the country. Further, the OP no.1 also provides free and on spot service on his products during the coverage of warranty period. On 11.10.2016, the complainant has purchased an ACER Desktop (Core 13/4GB/1TB/DOS/3 YRS) having serial no.UXVJSSIZ21G1919990 alongwith a TFT Monitor (TFT 18.5” ACER) having serial no.MMT3CSS00155204FBD4201 from the showroom of OP no.2 in Karnal, vide invoice no.829 dated 11.10.2016 for total amount of Rs.29,000/-.Both the products purchased by the complainant i.e. Desktop and the TFT Monitor are manufactured by the OP no.1 company and sold by the OP no.2 come with a comprehensive onsite warranty of 3 years. At the time of sale, the OP no.2 had promised the complainant that OP no.1 provides best services and support during the warranty period. After one and half year of purchase of the abovesaid computer Desktop and TFT Monitor manufactured by the OP no.1, it has developed a snag. Accordingly, the complainant called service centre/call centre of the OP no.1 and it was attended properly by service Engineers of the OP no.1 and it was attended properly by service Engineers of the OP no.1. On 28.07.2018, the service Engineers of the OP no.1 company after examining the system has replaced the Motherboard of the computer vide case ID no.27939591 dated 28.07.2018. After replacing of the Mother Board on 28.07.2018, the problem instead of improving has worsened. The complainant again lodged the complaint with service centre/call centre of the OP no.1 company on different dates including on 02.08.2018, 14.08.2018, 25.08.2018 and 17.09.2018. It is submitted that the complainant has lodged complaint about the said product more than 8 times in the last about two months and every time service engineers of the OP no.1 changed some part, however, the problem remained the same. The complainant is a Doctor by profession and there, he needs the computer fully functional all the time. The complainant purchased the Desktop and TFT Monitor for a consideration and using the same for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employed. However, due to repeated failure in the computer System, the complainant had to face unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.09.2018 to the OPs and demanded refund of the complete purchase price of the computer system or to replace the same with new one having similar specification but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that OP no.1 is engaged in the manufacturer/import of desktop computer systems, servers, laptops, notebooks, monitors, projectors, tablet PCs and supporting ID peripherals, and trading thereof, and provision of ancillary services connected therewith through its Authorized Service Partners. When a complaint is lodged by any customer through the call centre of OP no.1, such complaint will be assigned to its Authorized Service Partners. When a complaint is lodged by any complainant through the call centre of OP no.1, such complaint will be assigned to its Authorized Service Partners for resolving it on contrary to the allegation of the complainant stating that OP no.1 is providing any free and/or on the spot service for its products during the valid warranty period. It is further pleaded that the said desktop computer was used for one year and six months. The product was very much working upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The product was within the scope of warranty, there were possibilities to infer that issues in the motherboard of the product could have been emanated as a result of using the product other than for its normal intended use, failure to use it in accordance with the user’s guide or other misuse, abuse, or negligence in using it or due to any other external and/or environmental factors.  Besides, any motherboard of any IT products like laptop computer or desktop computer can become defective due to various other reasons like; Electrical spikes and surges, Dust, Pet, Hair and Debris, cigarette Smoke, Heating issues and normal aging and wear. The complainant neither produced any expert report/test report corroborative to his claim stating that the product was defective nor denied any of the above possibilities in his complaint. It is further pleaded that all the complaints vide case identification numbers (1) 27639591 dated 28.07.2018, (2) 28045551 dated 02.08.2018, (3) 28220251 dated 14.08.2018, (4) 28372101 dated 25.08.2018 and (5) 28727651 dated 17.09.2018 were duly attended by the OP no.1 through its Authorized Service Partners and no complaints left outstanding or unattended. The product was returned back to the complainant in working condition on 4^th October, 2018. Therefore, the service of OP no.1 cannot be claimed deficient. The complainant cannot initiate any legal proceedings against OP no.1 on account of the following reasons:

A. The said product is not inherent with manufacturing defect.

B. The services of OP no.1 or its associates cannot be claimed to be deficient as all the complaints are duly attended.

C. The faulty parts are repaired and replaced in accordance with Warranty Terms and Conditions. Thus, the warranty obligations are duly complied.

D. The product was returned back to the complainant in working condition.

Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is a manufacturer of the product in question. It is wrong to say that the OP no.2 promised the complainant for warranty of three years. It is on the part of the OP no.1 to provide warranty etc. The OP no.2 only provides software related problems services on behalf of OP no.1 and so far as hardware related problems service is to be handled by the OP no.1 being a manufacturer. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 given the proper services to the complainant to his satisfaction by replacing the motherboard etc. which fact has been admitted by the complainant himself. It is further pleaded that the products purchased by the complainant became defective as alleged due to mishandling and negligence on the part of the complainant and his staff, as he admitted in his complaint that after one and half year of purchase, the problem started to come in the products. It is further pleaded that when complainant made any complaint about any alleged defect, the OP no.1 resolved his complaints satisfactorily. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 15.10.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sargam Jain Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence on 09.12.2019.

6.             OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Arora Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 08.01.2020.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The case of the complainant in brief, is that he purchased a ACER Desktop alongwith a TFT Monitor from the OP no.2 in Karnal, vide invoice no.829 dated 11.10.2016 for total amount of Rs.29,000/-. The said laptop has become defective during the warranty period. Complainant made many complaints to the OPs in this regard but OPs failed to repair the laptop of the complainant despite his best efforts.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OP no.1, in brief, is that the desktop computer was used for one year and six months. The product was very much working upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The product was within the scope of warranty, there were possibilities to infer that issues in the motherboard of the product could have been emanated as a result of using the product other than for its normal intended use, failure to use it in accordance with the user’s guide or other misuse, abuse, or negligence in using it or due to any other external and/or environmental factors.  Besides, any motherboard of any IT products like laptop computer or desktop computer can become defective due to various other reasons like; Electrical spikes and surges, Dust, Pet, Hair and Debris, cigarette Smoke, Heating issues and normal aging and wear. The complainant neither produced any expert report/test report corroborative to his claim stating that the product was defective nor denied any of the above possibilities in his complaint. Further, as and when complainant made any complaints regarding the defect in the laptop in question, the OP no.1 resolved his complaints satisfactorily.

10.            The case of the OP no.2, in brief, is that the products purchased by the complainant became defective as alleged due to mishandling and negligence on the part of the complainant and his staff, as he admitted in his complaint that after one and half year of purchase, the problem started to come in the products. Further, when complainant made any complaint about any alleged defect, the OP no.1 resolved his complaints satisfactorily.

11.            Admittedly, the laptop in question purchased by the complainant from the OPs, vide invoice Ex.C1 for an amount of Rs.29,000/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the laptop has created problem during the warranty period and he made many complaints to the OPs in this regard. On the complaint of the complainant OPs replaced the motherboard of the laptop. After replacing of the Mother Board on 28.07.2018, the problem instead of improving has worsened. The complainant again lodged the complaint with service centre/call centre of the OP no.1 on different dates including on 02.08.2018, 14.08.2018, 25.08.2018 and 17.09.2018. The complainant lodged complaint about the said product more than 8 times in the last about two months and every time service engineers of the OP no.1 changed some part, however, the problem remained the same. To prove his case complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of complaints dated 28.07.2018, 04.08.2018, 14.08.2018, 25.08.2018 and 17.09.2018 Ex.C2 to Ex.C7. OPs have not denied the said complaint, however, they stated in their reply that all the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is well proved that the laptop of the complainant was not working properly and became defective during the warranty period and OPs failed to repair/replace the same. Thus, the act of the OPs amount to deficient in service and unfair trade practices.

12.            The complainant submits that he has purchased new laptop as he was in need of laptop urgently and now he does not want to replace his aforesaid laptop and he wants refund the total cost of the laptop in question alongwith litigation expenses, compensation in lieu of mental agony and harassment.

13.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.29,000/- to the complainant as cost of the laptop in question. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.02.2020

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                        Member                       Member