Kerala

StateCommission

A/134/2017

DELL INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJEESH JOSEPH - Opp.Party(s)

JOJU KYNADY

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,  SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 134/2017

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 01.04.2019

 

(Against the order in CC No.17/2014 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram
Order dated 26.09.2016)

 

PRESENT:

 

SRI. T.S.P.  MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT  R.	:	MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

M/s. DELL India Pvt. Ltd., Diyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challangatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South – 560 071.

 

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

 

VS

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

1.	Ajeesh Joseph, S/o Joseph, Vithuvettikkal House, Manimooli P.O., Vazhikkadavu amsom desom, Nilambur Taluk.
2.	The Manager, DELL Exclusive Store, 17/1609A, Arafa Building, Pavamani Road, Stadium Junction, Kozhicode.
3.	Computer City, G-25 Corporation Stadium, Rajagi Road, Kozhicode – 4.

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 

SRI. RANJIT  R. :         MEMBER

 

          1^st opposite party filed this appeal against the order passed in
CC No.17/2014 dated 26.09.2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short, District Forum directing it and 2^nd opposite party to refund Rs.54,255/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five) being the cost of laptop and Rs.5,989.98/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Ninety Eight paise) towards the amount paid for extended warranty.  They were further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost and compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost.

          Case of the complainant is that he is working as a supervisor in a construction company and for his official purpose, through opposite party No.3 on 14.10.2011 booked one laptop manufactured by 1^st opposite party, model No.DELL XPSL 502x, Tage No.3K 7R 8R1 through online.  Towards the sale consideration of Rs.54,255/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five) he paid the money through his account at State Bank of India, Manimooli on 14.10.2011.  At the time of booking they offered that they are ready to deliver the product within 2 weeks from the date of booking.  But instead of that complainant received the laptop at his residence only during the last week of November 2011.  Company offered one year warranty to the same at the time of delivery.  Thereafter complainant placed for one year extended warranty by paying an amount of Rs.5,989.98/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Ninety Eight paise).  The 1^st opposite party processed the same and the warranty for the said laptop was extended till 19.10.2013.  Within few days from the date of purchase of laptop complainant noticed some defects to the same such as low speed, low battery backup and bad performance and he made complaint through customer care and service agents and they repaired and replaced some parts but it was of no avail.  The first complaint was made on 24.01.2012.  Even after repair he could not use the laptop and made a complaint on 24.04.2013 and the service agent of the 1^st opposite party cured the defects by changing some parts.  After that on 20.09.2013 the laptop again stopped functioning and the matter was informed to the opposite parties, but they did not respond.

          1^st opposite party filed version contending that lower Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no cause of action arose with  the jurisdiction of the lower Forum.  He submitted that none of the respondents resides or doing business within the jurisdiction of the lower forum.   They further contended that the complaints registered by the complainant was duly attended by the service engineer and has rectified the complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant. 

          2^nd opposite party did not file any version.

          3^rd opposite party filed version contending that he has not direct relationship with the complainant and he has not received any consideration from him.  According to him complainant approached his shop and enquired about the laptop manufactured by DELL company and about the details of online purchase.  He has no role in the purchase of the laptop.

          Evidence consists of chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by the complainant and Exts.A1-A7 marked on his side.  Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.

          The lower Forum on the basis of the materials produced concluded that the laptop in question was not functioning properly from the very beginning of its purchase and opposite parties did not cared to correct the defects in time which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The district Forum on the basis of this conclusion passed the impugned order.

          Heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellant contented that they have rectified all the complaints within the warranty period free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.  However they could not rectify the defects which was intimated to them on 18.10.2013 through phone, since the complainant was not having the laptop with him at that time.  The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Forum passing interim order directing them to repair the laptop, against which they preferred a revision petition before this Commission and this commission while dismissing the revision gave direction to them to repair the laptop.  They have duly acted as per the order.  The expense were also taken by the opposite party/appellant even though the said laptop was out of warranty.  No complaint was lodged or reported by the complainant after it was repaired.

          Complainant who was present in person had submitted that he was working as a supervisor in a construction company and the laptop was purchased for his official purpose and since he could not use the laptop from the very beginning as it was defective which caused much inconvenience and sufferings and he has to be adequately compensated.

          Perusing the documents it is seen that even though the defects were rectified by the 1^st opposite party, there occurred much delay in curing the defects.  They also did not attend to the defect which was intimated to them on 04.10.2013, 14.10.2013 and 18.10.2013, even though the extended warranty was till 19.10.2013.  They were bound to repair it under warranty.  Hence the lower Forum gave interim direction to repair the laptop to the satisfaction of the complainant against which the opposite party/appellant preferred Revision Petition before this commission.  This commission while dismissing the Revision Petition, gave direction to the appellant to repair the laptop.  The opposite party/appellant repaired the laptop on November 2014 only on the direction of This commission.  The laptop was kept idle for more than one year.  No doubt this must have caused much inconvenience and sufferings to the complainant.  The opposite parties has also not attended the previous repairs on time.  The act/omission in not attending the repairs on time clearly amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant is to be adequately compensated for the same, as found by the district Forum.  The District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and cost at
Rs. Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid to the complainant.  In these circumstances we hold that amount of compensation and cost ordered by the Lower Forum is only just and reasonable and no interference is called for against this part of the order.

          The District Forum instead of awarding compensation and cost alone, for deficiency of service, also directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.54,255/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five), the price of the laptop and also Rs.5,989.98/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Ninety Eight paise), the amount paid for extended warranty, without finding that the laptop was having manufacturing defect.  Simply because the laptop was repaired many times within the warranty period, that in itself will not tantamount to manufacturing defects.  Warranty is only for replacing of parts or repairing.  The opposite parties had carried out the repairs/replacement of the defective parts within warranty period though there was delay.  It is upto the complainant to prove that the laptop was having manufacturing defects.  He has not taken any steps to prove the same.  No material was produced by the complainant to prove that the laptop was having manufacturing defects.  Hence the order of the district Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the laptop and to refund the extended warranty amount, without finding manufacturing defects is perse illegal and unsustainable.  This part of the impugned order is to be set aside, we do so.

          In the light of the above discussion, while upholding the order of the district Forum allowing compensation at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and cost at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), we set aside the order of the district Forum directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.54,255/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Five), being the cost of the laptop and Rs.5,989.98/- (Rupees Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine Ninety Eight paise), amount paid towards extended warranty for one year. 

          In the result the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

          Release an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) which was awarded as compensation and cost to the complainant from the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) deposited by the appellant, on his application.  Balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is to be released to the appellant on its application.

         

Parties to suffer their respective cost.

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT  R.	:	MEMBER

 

 

 

 

SL