Customer's Rights in the Warranties are at Stake With Sense Micro Distributors in Sri Lanka

I purchased a TP-Link 4 port router from Telecom at Gampaha on 23 April 2011 with a 1 year warranty. The box in which the router is packed clearly indicates that the unit is ‘Better-Protected’ against lightning.

As the router was malfunctioning after two months, I handed over it back to the Gampaha Telecom on 7 June 2011 and they notified me that they would get the unit inspected/ repaired by their supplier within a week. As I did not get any positive feedback, I visited the Telecom Gampaha again on 21 June 2011 and they told me that the unit was damaged due to a lightning and it is beyond repairs and I need to deal with their supplier to claim the damage under the warranty.

I contacted the supplier over the phone and they told me that they would not replace the damaged router with a new one neither they would do the repairs.

In my opinion, the damage to the router is covered under the warranty and I shall be appropriately compensated with a new router which is non-negotiable under the law of the land.

However, Telecom Gampaha is in the position that the supplier should resolve this matter urgently in terms of their obligations towards me as a customer because the intentions of the parties at the time of selling/ purchasing this item are very clear that it is better protected against lightning.

The manager of the supplier subsequently contacted me no sooner he received the mail sent to him and offered to provide me with a brand new router as agreed between ourselves where 50% of the basic cost of the unit to be borne by me but I expressed my displeasure for not providing the same free of cost under the warranty.

I need to stress the fact that I don’t want to make a bad precedent by depriving customers right enshrined in Direction 10(1) under Sri Lanka Consumer Affairs Authority Act No. 3 of 2003 with regard to their right to claim damages during the warranty period.

I further wish to emphasize that the trader can absolutely cover the risk due to lightning

a) by having appropriate insurance by the trader to cover the damage

b) allocating the cost of such premium equally among the number of units within the overheads/mark-up the selling price of the trader

c) Any damage after the warranty period is the risk of the customer.

This settlement is purely personal merely to mitigate the impact of non-availabilty of the 24 hour internet facility provided to my residence by the Telecom.