Haryana

Karnal

CC/155/2015

Dayal Singh College - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Simple Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Subhoodh Gupta

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.155 of 2015

                                                          Date of Instt. 15.07.2015

                                                          Date of decision 21.4.2016

 

Dyal Singh College, Karnal through its Principal.                                                    

                                                             ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

1.Simple Technologies SCO 343, Mughal Canal Market, Karnal through its Partner Proprietor.

2.Dell India Pvt.Ltd. # 12/1. 12/2A, 13/1Am / Divya Shree Greens Koramangla Ring Road, Challanghatta Varthur Banglore, Karnatka- 560036 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…….Member.             

 

 Present        Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

                   Opposite Party no.1 in person.      

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act1986, on the averments that one Dell laptop  and canno scanner were purchased from Opposite Party  no.1 for an amount of Rs.44050/- vide bill dated 7.2.2015. One year complete warranty  was provided by the company for the laptop but the same started giving problems after one mo nth of its purchase. The complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party No.2 but none from the company to rectify the unit. The unit was deposited by him with the Opposite Party no.1, who further sent the same to the service centre of the company. After three days, the laptop was returned  by the Opposite Party no.1  with the assurance that the same was fully  repaired. However, two months the unit started giving problems. He lodged the complaint with the Opposite Parties, but nobody came to rectify the unit and the same is still lying dead and useless.  In June, 2015, he approached the Opposite Parties and requested for replacement of the laptop. It was told by the Opposite Party no.2 that laptop could not be repaired as the same was having manufacturing defect. When the complainant asked to replace the laptop within warranty period, the Opposite Parties refused to replace the same. Thus, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party no.1 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law  and  that the complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate the Opposite Party no.1.

 

                   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased one laptop and scanner from the Opposite Party no.1 on 7.2.2015.It has been submitted that the Opposite Party no.1 is authorized dealer who sold the laptop whereas warranty of the said laptop was provided by the Opposite Party no.2 through its service centre. Thus, there was neither any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party no.1 nor any cause of action accrued to the complainant against Opposite Party no.1.,

 

3.                The Opposite Party no.2 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant doesnot fall within the definition of the consumer as provided u/s 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act because the laptop was purchased by Dyal Singh College for use for its office purposes; that the complainant has no cause of action; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and  that the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds just to cause harassment to the Opposite Party no.2 to accede its illegal demands.

 

                   On merits, it has beenpleaded that complainant approached the Opposite Party no.2 for the first time in  January 14, 2015 and reported  some issue  with  the laptop. The complainant used the said system with the complete satisfaction for a period of five months and never reported any issue till  January 14,2015. Therefore, there was no manufacturing defect in the system. To resolve the issue, technician of the Opposite Party  offered repair and  same was accepted by the complainant. Mr. Shridhar Guru Murti representative of the Opposite Party no.2 had  contacted the complainant several times, though e-mail to get system repaired, but the complainant never responded back. The Opposite Party no.2 is still ready to  resolve the issue as per warranty policy. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant affidavit of Pampa Sain Gupta Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Manish Gupta Ex.R1 has only been tendered.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased one laptop manufactured by Opposite Party no.2. As per the case of the complainant, the laptop  started giving problems after one month of its purchase and the same was got repaired from Opposite Party no.1, but after two months the same again started giving problems, but none came from the Opposite Parties to rectify the defect The Opposite Party no.2  in the written statement has  pleaded that the complainant reported the problems in the laptop  on January 14,2015 and its representative Shridhar Guru Murti contacted the complainant several times through E-mails to get the system repaired, but the complainant never responded. It has also been specifically pleaded that Opposite Party no.2 is still ready to resolve the issue as per the warranty policy, if the complainant was desired.

7.                Copy of the E-mail sent by Mehmod Aarif on behalf of Opposite Party no.2 to the complainant on 14.7.2015 Ex.C3 shows that the complainant had raised some issues regarding the laptop and   Mr. Arif told the complainant that he could be contacted  till resolution of the issue. There is no documentary evidence of the complainant worth the name which may show that the complainant had taken the laptop to any authorized service centre of the Opposite Party no.2 after 14.1.2015 and the authorized service centre or representative of Opposite Party no.2 refused to repair the same. However, from the pleadings of the parties and documents Ex.C3 this fact at least stands established that there was problem in the laptop purchased,  during the warranty period. The Opposite Party no.2 was bound to get rectified the defects and  if the defects are not repairable, then replace the laptop with a new one of the same value or refund the price.

 

7.                The complainant is  Dyal Singh College, Karnal. There is no evidence worth the name on record  which may show that college is being run for commercial purpose. It is settled principle of law that education is not a commodity and educational institutions are not providing any  kind of service. Therefore, even if it is accepted that laptop was purchased for office use, then  also it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the complainant had purchased the same for commercial purposes.

 

 

 

Therefore, the plea raised by the Opposite Party no.2 that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party no.2 to rectify the defects of the  laptop of the complainant and if the same is not repairable,  to replace the same with a new one of the same price. We further direct the opposite party to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party no.2 shall make the compliance of  this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Subodh Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the Opposite Party no.2.

                   Opposite Party no.1 in person.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.04.2016.

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.