BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI
Complaint No. 217 of 2016
Date of Institution: 06.10.2016
Date of Decision: 16.12.2022.
Naresh Kumar son of Shri Gorakh Ram, R/o Manaan Pana, Ward No.16, Near Neem Wali Paras, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
............….Complainant.
Versus
- Manager, Amazon India Pvt. Ltd., Brigade Gateway 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram West, Bengaluru Karnataka 560055.
- Manager, Laptech solutions Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 341 Village Mahalunge Off Chakan Talegaan Road, Behind Marriott Khed Taluka, Chakan Pune 410501, Maharashtra, India.
- Manager Dell India Pvt. Ltd., 12/1 12/2A 13/1A Divya shree greens Koramangala Ring Road Challaghatta, Varthur Hobli Banglore/Bongluru/Karnataka 560036.
- Manager, Wipro Technologies Gurgaon, Wipro Technologies Plot No 480- 481 Udyog Vihar Phase III Gurgaon-122016.
- Manager, Amazon transportation Services Devsar chundi mod, Opp Jogi wala Mandir, Behind flyover Bhiwani-127021.
...........…....Respondents.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.
MRS. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sunil Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
None for OP. No.1.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
Sh.Vaibhav Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Sh.Sudhir Kumar Advocate for opposite party No.4.
Opposite party No.5 already exparte.
ORDER:
SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER:
- Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Laptop of Dell company online on dated 04.06.2016 having model no. Dell 3541, Serial No.5G83682 dated 04.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.20254/-. But on 07.06.2016 the said laptop started “Automatic switch off on heating and
did not take charging”. Complainant made complaints to the opposite parties in the month of August 2016. The mechanic of the company namely Sh. Pardeep Malik visited the house of complainant and told that three parts of laptop i.e. motherboard, power cod and one other part were defective. But the same were not changed despite repeated requests of the complainant. On 01.10.2016, one engineer of the company namely Sh. Sunil visited the house of complainant and replaced the alleged three parts but at the time of opening the laptop, it got slipped from his hand and broken from the side. He also replaced the motherboard of the laptop with a defective motherboard and had taken the charger with him. Complainant told the same to the Dell Manager Sh. Mukesh Kumar but he told that no part was replaced by them and further said that there is no defect in the laptop of the complainant. Complainant tried to make complaints to the Manager but the numbers were switched off. Complainant also send email but they replied that the laptop has been set right. Whereas the laptop in question is not working and is in dead condition. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of laptop alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the Complainant purchased Dell 3541 15.6-inch Laptop (A-Series-Quad-Core A6/4GB/500GB HDD/AMD with Radeon) from the website of answering opposite party on 4 June, 2016 after duly agreeing to “conditions of use” as prescribed on the website. As per return policy, Laptop, whose delivery is fulfilled by the answering opposite party, is not eligible for any refund. However, after delivery of the product, the complainant alleged to have discovered that certain accessories of the Product were missing. The Complainant contacted the Customer Service Team of the Answering OP on June 11, 2016 vide email. Since the item was not available with the same Seller a replacement was not created, however a refund was initiated on 20 June 2016. A total refund of Rs. 20,254/- was issued to the Complainant vide gift card of Rs. 20,000/- and the rest Rs.254/- using a credit card. Therefore, the allegations enumerated in the complaint that the Product had certain defects are absolutely false and vexatious and hence stand fit to be dismissed. It is once again reiterated here that the Answering OP is merely a facilitator and is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The ASSPL cannot be a party to or control in any manner any sale transaction on the Website. Further, the Answering OP has neither any knowledge, nor the facility to ascertain any defect if it occurs in the product. It is only the manufacturer and the service centre of the manufacturer who can resolve any such alleged defects with the Product. The warranty is provided by the manufacturer subject to the warranty terms & conditions and Answering OP has no role to play in the warranty terms & conditions. Thus, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed out rightly.
3. The Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complaint of the complainant was registered and the alleged issues were sought to be resolved, however, it is the complainant who started demanding a replacement and threatened to file against O.P. No.3 if the same was not provided to him. That OP No.3 is and has always be ready and selling to provide the support and service to its customers in tune with the warranty policy that accompanies all the system. It is submitted that the complainant contacted OP No.3 for the first time on the 29 August 2016. The complainant himself has admitted that O.P. No 3 was in constant touch with him at every step of the way. The complainant was informed on 26th of September 2016 that the required part would be in the possession of OP No.3 in the next few days and an onsite engineer was deputed on 1st of October 2016 to replace the offending part and resolve any issues that may exists. But the complainant demanded a replacement and threatened to initiate legal action against opposite party No.3 if the replacement was not provided to him. That on 1st of October 2016, the offending parts were replaced with the exception of the motherboard as some issues were detected with the same and the complainant was assured that the same would be replaced at the earliest. That the components manufactured by OP No.3 are tested and certified from the factory before the same are shipped. That it is denied that there is any cheating on behalf of O.P. No.3 and the allegations raised by the complainant are false and denied. That the onsite engineer did not take possession of the adapter at any point of time and OP. No 3 is not in possession of the same and no such incident as described by the complainant has taken place. That the complainant is making unsubstantiated claims and falsifying facts. This complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has been made out against O.P. No 3
4. Opposite party No.4 in its reply has submitted that complainant has never entered into any agreement with Opposite Party No. 4. The answering opposite party has no role in the present matter and the complainant has unnecessarily implicated the respondent/opposite party No.4 as neither the opposite party No.4 has sold the product, nor committed any deficiency in services to the complainant. Thus the present complaint against the respondent/opposite party is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 and closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2020. However, opposite party No.2 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 23.01.2019 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered document Annexure R1 and closed his evidence on dated 09.07.2021. Ld. counsel for OP no.4 made a statement that written statement already filed on its behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 20.09.2022. Opposite party No.5 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.5 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.03.2017 of this Commission.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through written argument filed by complainant & opposite party No.3 and also gone through them material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a Laptop online on dated 04.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.20254/- and the said laptop started giving problem like “Automatic switch off on heating and did not take charging”. The alleged defects appeared just within 2 months of its purchase. The mechanic of the company namely Sh. Pardeep Malik visited the house of complainant and told that three parts of laptop i.e. motherboard, power cod and one other part were defective. But the same were not changed despite his repeated requests. On 01.10.2016, one engineer of the company namely Sh. Sunil replaced the alleged three parts and at the time of checking, the laptop was slipped away from his hand and its corner got broken. On the other hand, it is admitted by the opposite party No.3 that on 1st of October 2016, the offending parts were replaced with the exception of the motherboard as some issues were detected with the same and the complainant was assured that the same would be replaced at the earliest. Complainant wrote several emails to the company which are placed on record as Annexure C3. As per this email opposite party agreed to settle the matter and agreed to “Rectify the reported technical issue, to ship out the missing Adapter and to provide with one year NBD warranty”. As the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite parties, so he decided to get replacement of his product but the opposite party refused for replacement. It is also observed that opposite party no.1 in its reply has stated that a total refund of Rs.20254/- was issued to the complainant but no such document has placed on record by the opposite party no.1 and as such the same cannot be believed.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defects in the laptop in question appeared just within 2 months of its purchase. There were heating and charging issues in the laptop and motherboard was also defective which could not be removed by the opposite party No.3 despite repair, which shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. Hence the opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of laptop in question to the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay the price of laptop i.e. Rs.20254/-(Rupees twenty thousand two hundred and fifty four only) i.e. alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.06.10.2016 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.7000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.12.2022.
……………………………......
Nagender Singh, President
..................................................
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Sh. Sunil Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
None for OP. No.1.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
Sh.Vaibhav Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Sh.Sudhir Kumar Advocate for opposite party No.4.
Opposite party No.5 already exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of the even date, the present complaint stands allowed. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission.
Dated: - 16.12.2022
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Nagender Singh)
Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
