State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurvinder Singh vs 1. Charanjit Singh (Manager) on 8 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 272 of 2013 Date of Institution : 25.06.2013 Date of Decision : 08.08.2013 Gurvinder Singh, aged 29 years, son of Sh.Karam Singh, R/o H.No.36-C, AMN Depot Dapar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab. Appellant/Complainant V e r s u s 1. Charanjit Singh (Manager), Service Centre, SCO No.98-100, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 2. Anu Support Cordinator, ACER India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.58-59, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh 160022. 3. Noble Informatique Chandigarh, SCO No.61, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh Tribune Road, Chandigarh. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Gurvinder Singh, appellant, in person.
Sh. M.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.05.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), with the following directions to the Opposite Parties (now respondents):-
Resultantly, in view of the foregoings, entirety of the case as well as in the interest of justice & equity, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to grant 6 months warranty period on the Laptop in question from the date of this order, towards its repair on account of any defect in it and shall not charge anything towards labour charges. However, they shall be at liberty to charge for the replacement of any part(s) of the Laptop, if needed. We order accordingly. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one laptop of ACER, ASPIRE 5830T, on 09.11.2011, from Opposite Party No.3, for a sum of Rs.32,000/-, vide retail invoice Ann.C-1, carrying a warranty of one year. The said laptop became defective, on 18.09.2012. The defect was reported to the Opposite Parties. The engineer of the Opposite Parties, changed the keyboard of the laptop, as a result whereof, its RAM stared giving noise and was disconnected. It was stated that due to repair of the laptop, the battery of the same was not working properly. Thereafter, the complainant made numerous complaints to the Opposite Parties, about defects, in the laptop. He also sent e-mail to this effect, and met the Officials of the Opposite Parties, but they did not pay any heed, to his request. It was further stated that the laptop was lying non-functional, since 21.09.2012, and, as such, the complainant could not use it. It was further stated that the laptop, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. When the Opposite Parties were asked to replace the defective laptop, with a new one, as also pay compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, they did not do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to replace the defective laptop, with a new one; and pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the sale of laptop, in question, to the complainant. It was stated that one year warranty period of the laptop had expired, on 08.11.2012. It was further stated that, in response to the complaint, lodged on 21.09.2012, keyboard of the laptop was replaced and the same was returned, to the satisfaction of the complainant, on that very day. It was further stated that, at the time of service of the said laptop, it was observed by the engineer of the Opposite Parties, that right side of the side hinge and cover of the same (laptop) was physically damaged, which fact was mentioned in the Job Card Annexure A. It was further stated that, Opposite Party No.1, rejected the request of the complainant, for replacement of the defective parts of the laptop, i.e. right hinge and cover break, due to physical damage, as such damage fell outside the scope of Limited Product Warranty (Ann.C). However, as a goodwill gesture, Opposite Party No.2, agreed to replace the physically damaged parts. Accordingly, some of the keys of the keyboard, LCD Screen Bezel and LCD Screen Panel, were replaced on 22.11.2012, vide Job Card Annexure D. It was further stated that the complainant had collected the laptop, and acknowledged the service provided, as was evident, from the Job Card, Annexure E. It was further stated that there were no manufacturing defects, in the said laptop. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, claiming reliefs, for the replacement of defective laptop with a new one, and grant of compensation.
7. We have heard the appellant/complainant, in person, Counsel for the respondents, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The appellant, submitted that right from the day one, the laptop was purchased by him, it started giving troubles. He further submitted that the laptop, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. He further submitted that he had to take the laptop, a number of times, to the Opposite Parties, and the same was kept, by them, for a number of days, on various occasions, as a result whereof, he could not use the same, which caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to him. He further submitted that, since the laptop, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties, to replace the same, as also to pay compensation, to him, for mental agony and physical harassment. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, thus, deserves to be modified.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties, submitted that the laptop, in question, was purchased by the complainant on 09.11.2011, and the first complaint was made by him, on 21.09.2012, i.e. after about ten months of its purchase. He further submitted that, as and when the laptop was brought to the Opposite Parties, necessary repairs were effected. He further submitted that the complainant requested for the replacement of defective parts of laptop, which were physically damaged, which were outside the purview of the terms and conditions of the warranty, yet, as a goodwill gesture, Opposite Party No.2 agreed to replace the same (physically damaged parts), and, ultimately replaced the same. He further submitted that the said laptop, did not suffer from any manufacturing defects. He further submitted that the complainant was not entitled to the replacement of laptop and payment of compensation.
10. The purchase of laptop, in question, by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.3, was admitted. Warranty of the said laptop expired on 08.11.2012. The first complaint, with regard to defects, in the laptop was made, by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties on 21.09.2012. It is evident, from the Job Card Annexure A dated 09.10.2012 that the problem reported by the complainant was that some keys of the laptop were not working. The keyboard was replaced and it was found working, as is evident from the Job Card Annexure B dated 26.10.2012, but the complainant was not satisfied. There is another Customer Service cum Call Slip dated 22.11.2012, Annexure D. The problem reported by the complainant was that some keys of the laptop were not functioning and the same was giving beep sound error. Another problem, which was reported was that upper case and lower case of the LCD were found broken. The action taken by the engineer of the Opposite Parties was as under:-
a) Replaced keyboard against RMA No.A10573304
b) Replaced LCD bezal against RMA No.A10573288
c) Replaced LCD Back penal against RMA No.A10573288. These [ b) and c) ] items/parts were physically damaged at the time of problem reported by the customer.
Engineers Feedback:
Broken items, replaced as a special case and the goodwill of the Company and service providers (Note. Physical damaged/broken from any side will not cover in warranty).
11. However, it is evident, from the Customer Service-cum-Call Slip dated 05.11.2012, Annexure E, that some keys of the laptop were not working, as per the problem, reported by the customer. Action which was taken by the engineer of the Opposite Parties was to the effect, that after checking, keyboard found O.K. and no problem was found, in the laptop, yet, the complainant was not satisfied. It is evident, from the Customer Service-cum-Call Slip dated 22.11.2012, Annexure D referred to above, that physical damaged parts/broken parts, were not to be replaced, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, yet, as a goodwill gesture, the same were replaced by Opposite Party No.2. It means, as and when, the complainant went to the Opposite Parties, with regard to the defects, in the laptop, the same were duly rectified. As such, his grievance that his complaints were not attended to, by the Opposite Parties, did not carry any weight, and the same deserves to be rejected. The Opposite Parties were, thus, not deficient, in rendering service.
12. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the laptop suffered from manufacturing defects or not. No expert evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove this fact. In the absence of any expert evidence, it could not be said that the laptop, in question, suffered from any inherent manufacturing defects. However, it may be stated here, that when the complaint was pending before the District Forum, an expert of the Opposite Parties had examined the laptop, in question, and submitted his report, on 16.04.2013, with regard to the actual and factual condition of the same. The concluding/relevant part of the expert report reads as under:-
The Notebook computer was powered on and found it is good working condition.
In view of the foregoing observations it is clearly established facts that the Notebook Computer does not have any manufacturing defects except the physical damages which are caused by the complainant.
13. The complainant filed objections, to the said report, wherein he stated that Sh.Sanjiv Kumar, who submitted the report, relevant part of which is extracted above, was not an Expert Engineer. The objections submitted by the complainant were rejected. From the afore-extracted operative part of the report of the expert, it was proved that the laptop, in question, was not suffering from any manufacturing defects. It was also proved, from the record, that during the warranty period, whatever defects were pointed out, in the laptop, were rectified by the engineer of the Opposite Parties, and even the broken/damaged parts of the same, as a goodwill gesture, were replaced, though the replacement thereof did not fall within the terms and conditions of the warranty, which is evident, from Sub-Clause 1.2 of Clause B of the Limited Product Warranty (Annexure-C). Under these circumstances, the appellant was not at all entitled to the replacement of the laptop. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
14. No other point, was urged, by the appellant, and Counsel for the respondents.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
August 8, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.272 of 2013) Argued by: Sh. Gurvinder Singh, appellant, in person.
Sh. M.S. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.
Dated the 8th day of August 2013 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg