Delhi

East Delhi

CC/888/2014

KISHOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROMA - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        888 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 20/09/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                10/07/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         12/07/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Kishor Kumar,  adult   

R/o-B1/409, Shantidoot Apartment  

Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 110096 (Old Address)

 

New Address—

 

Mr Kishore Kumar

s/o- Mr suresh Kumar Jha,

R/o- D-201, Civitech Sampriti,

Sec. 77, Noida, 201301……………………………….…..…………………..….Complainant                                                                 

                                                                     Vs

1- Croma

RO- Bombay House, Homi Modi Street,

Mumbai –400001

& Sales Office- Croma, Plot no. C 53,

Preet Vihar, Main Vikas Marg, Delhi 110091

 

2- M/s Dell        

12/1, 12/2A, Divya Shree Green, Phase 8,  

Challghatta Village, Varthur Hobli,

Koramangala, Bangaluru, Karnatka 560071……………………..………………….……Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant, purchased a DELL Inspiron laptop from OP1/ Croma having shop at Preet Vihar, Delhi for a sum of Rs 36,450/-model no. Inspiron 153542/i3/Win8SL/4GB/500GB/int vide cash

 

 

memo no. SLF02A089020015686 on dated 17/08/2014 marked here as Ex CW1/1 and CW1/1A & CW1/1C. After using the said laptop, some problem occurred in switching the laptop besides touch pad functions from 18/08/2014, so complainant contacted OP1 for replacing the laptop, but no replacement was done instead told to contact customer care no. of OP2.

On the same date, complaint was lodged for refund the cost of laptop or replace with new one. OP2 refused to refund, told complainant to contact OP1 /Croma and laptop would be replaced or he would get the credit note for the same. After much delay, OP2 sent credit note and told complainant to get the laptop replaced. Even after replacement, it was not working properly so again complaint was lodged with OP2. A technical support was provided by OP2. By this time complainant wasted over one month and was getting physically harassed as he had to apply in various online study courses and related jobs.

Complainant sent various emails to OP2, but his complaints for refund of the cost was not considered rather faulty laptop was replaced after getting credit note from OP2 as annexed Ex CW1/2 to Ex CW1/27. Not getting satisfactory reply and new replacement, his wife Smt Deepa gave notice for harassment and mental agony due to their financial loss and intimated for recovery of their losses annexed as Ex CW1/28. Hence, this complaint was filed by complainant, Mr Kishor Kumar, claiming refund of the cost of laptop a sum of Rs 36450/ with Rs 30,000/- as compensation for complainant with Rs 5 lakh for damage occurred to his wife’s carrier and loss of fee for IELTS course. He also claimed a sum of Rs 10 lakh for loss of delay occurred in his VISA process and Rs 5000/- as litigation charges. Thus in all claimed a sum of Rs 15,81,500/- for a faulty laptop given by OP2.         

After receiving notices, OP2 submitted their joint written statement for OP1 and denied all the allegations against them. It was submitted that OP2 had timely replied to all his emails as annexed by complainant and said laptop was replaced under standard warranty tenure with service tag number #4TWN612 and again laptop was replaced with new system bearing tag no. #2WWN612 by the distributor. So, there was no cause of action still complaint had filed this complaint.    

 

 

OP2 also submitted that there was no deficiency in their services as per the warranty tenure and every emails were replied accordingly, but almost every time complainant was interested in new laptop or refund of the cost of the laptop. The said laptop had touch pad defect which was replaced by new one and when again problem occurred, the laptop was replaced. So there was no deficiency in their service as per settled law in Shivprasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machenary Company, I (2006) CPJ 92 NC where it was laid that—

     “It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if it cannot be repaired”.

Here OP2 had replaced the said laptop twice. So, the present complaint be dismissed.

Complainant submitted his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the contents and evidences on record were true and correct. It was submitted that OP2 had not refunded the cost of laptop, but replaced with faulty laptop twice which caused financial loss.    

OP had also submitted their evidences through Mr Atul Mehta, AR of OP2 having their office in Gurgaon and affirmed on oath that OP2 had given their services as per warranty tenure and complainant’s laptop was replaced with credit note also. He also stated that there was no violation of warranty clause by OP in providing their services. He also stated that as per annexure CW1/8, submitted by complainant clearly states that there was no refund of all such electronic products except providing services and even replacement of product if any manufacturing defect was noted. In this case, some touch pad problem was reported, so the said laptop was replaced and even replaced again. Thus, there had been no deficiency on their part.  

Arguments were heard from both party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was seen that the said laptop had developed some touch pad problem during warranty period which was replaced by OP2 again laptop was replaced. It is clear that complainant had some days difficulty in getting replacement, but it cannot be said that complainant had suffered financial loss of over 15 lakhs

 

 

and could not pursue online courses or lost job opportunities as there was no such evidence on record which sustain the alleged financial loss and carreer.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant could not establish deficiency in services of OP2 or defective product was sold by OP1. So, OPs are discharged from any liability and subsequent this complaint is dismissed without any cost.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                                Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                 

    Member                                                                                                                                  Member                                                                                   

                                              

                                              Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                             President