DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 889/14

Ms. Anuj Rajput

SHouse No. 1045, Sector-4B

Vasundharra, Ghaziabad

Uttar Pradesh – 201012                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. The Manager

Arrow Information Pvt. Ltd.

R-18, Rita Block, Shakarpur

Opp. Metro Pillar No. 48, Delhi - 92

2. The Managing Director

Dell India Pvt. Ltd.

Divyashree Gardens

12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A Chellaghatta Village

Varthur Hobli, South Bangalore

Bangalore -560094                                                                                   ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 30.09.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 23.08.2016

Judgment Passed on : 09.09.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by complainant        Ms. Anuj Rajput alleging deficiency in services by OP-1, The Manager, Arrow Information Pvt. Ltd. and the Managing Director, Dell India, OP-2. 

2.        This complaint pertains to Dell Laptop, model No. 3421 (touch screen) purchased on 25^th January 2014 by the complainant from OP-1.  The said laptop was purchased for Rs. 35,500/- with one year warranty.  Soon after purchase, the laptop developed problem of slow processing.  It was then informed by call centre of OP-2 that the laptop sold by OP-1 was imported from Thailand. 

            On confrontation, OP-1 misbehaved and refused to repair the laptop.  It was further stated that complainant filed complaint no. 510517 and also sent legal notice to OP-1, but till date there was no redressal of her complaints.  The complainant has prayed for refund of sum of Rs. 35,500/-, compensation for monetary loss amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. 

3.        Notice was duly served on both OPs, but OP-1 did not put appearance, thus was proceeded ex-parte.  OP-2 filed their reply where they had submitted that, firstly, OP-1 was not authorized to sell the laptop in question, as it was meant for sale in Thailand only and it did not had international warranty.  Secondly, OP-1 was not the authorized dealer of OP-2.  Thus, there was no cause of action against them.

4.        Thereafter, complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated contents of the complaint and denied the submissions made by OP-2. 

5.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed.

6.        Complainant and Ld. counsel for OP-2 addressed the arguments and perusal of retail invoice dated 24.01.2014 annexed with the complaint reveals that there was “one year warranty at the dealer end” and in terms & conditions also, it states “warranties will be given by Distributors Service Centre”.  As OP-1 has not put appearance, allegations/averments against him by the complainant and OP-2, remain uncontroverted.  Hence, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of OP-2, Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.  It was OP-1, who had indulged in unfair trade practice and deficient in providing services.   

7.        We direct OP-1 to refund an amount of Rs. 35,500/- to the complainant with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint.  Rs. 5,000/- are also awarded to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses to be paid by OP-1, Arrow International Pvt. Ltd.  The directions to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President