Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that he has one Dell Studio 1555 laptop service tag No.CQGH3BS and he has complete accidental warranty in respect of that laptop under the OP for the period from 12-09-2011 to 12-09-2012.

          It is specific case that on 2^nd August, 2012 his laptop was accidentally damaged by gas Cylinder and then he contacted to Dell customer support, who heard about that and asked the complainant to submit the photographs of damaged part of laptop so that he may get the benefit of complete accidental coverage and they also stated that after considering the same the parts would be replaced so complainant sent the photographs of damage part of the laptop.  Next day when he contacted with Dell support, they said that laptop is totally damaged and so complainant asked the OP to replace the damage laptop but they submitted that the damage is due to complainant’s negligence and they also stated that they have nothing to do.

          After several discussions complainant contacted with National Consumer Helpline who suggested him that write a letter to Consumer Service Head of Dell and so he wrote a letter on the basis of that letter and Dell finally changed damaged parts of his laptop.  When he received that he found the laptop is unable to read or write CD/DVD, although this parts is being replaced by service centre and for which he contacted to Dell Service Centre.  Finally Service Centre accepted that DVD drive is faulty and OP changed the DVD drive.  Subsequently, when he need to take back up of his hard disk he found that hard disk replaced by Dell Service Centre is damaged i.e. metal that hold hard disk is broken.  Then he contacted to Dell Service Centre but they refused to accept this.  Thereafter, he again contacted to Dell Support and finally OP accepted that this will be done through Service Centre and said that OP is sending parts to the Service Centre and damage part shall be replaced. 

          So, complainant’s grievance is that why service centre fixed damage parts to its laptop and after receiving his laptop he found two parts, one DVD Writer and hard disk not in proper way and in case of DVD he accepted that this can be technical issue.  But in case of hard disk is totally cheating act on the part of the OP and moreover he accepted that other parts which was replaced in his laptop fixed are in good condition.  But actually same were not found.  So, complainant prayed for replacement the laptop with compensation as he has lost faith upon the OPs.

          On the other hand, OP s by filing written statement submitted that entire complaint is frivolous, baseless and without any foundation and it is submitted that the complainant reported accidental damage with the said product under dispute and on 04-08-2012 complainant claimed a replacement which was initially denied by the frontline team for the reasons that the said defects was complainant’s induced damage/intentional damage but the complainant’s system was later serviced at the Service Centre and as many as 26 parts were replaced to resolve the issues.  The complainant was expecting replacement of system from OP and he was not happy with the service system.  The complainant claimed that the hard drive cage was not replaced and its sharp edges could cause injury.  The OP clarified to the complainant about not replacing that part as the original part was fixed by bending and said hard drive bracket is covered by plastics and there is no way it would cause any injury unless the customer opens the plastic cover.  But the OP offered to get the parts replaced but the complainant is still insisting on a WUR and compensation indicating complainant’s ulterior motive just to harass the OP and to extort money from the OP which proves complainant’s greed but OP further submitted that OP’s representative Sridhar Gurumurthy followed up with the customer on 17-09-2012 and optical drive was replaced at the Service Centre and the issue was resolved on 22-09-2012.  The complainant collected the system on 24-09-2012 and OPs representative Sridhar Gurumurthy followed up with the complainant on 26-09-2012 and he confirmed the issue was resolved and so, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not report any other issue at this time and the case was closed.  The complainant was advised on this day that the warranty already expired and suggested to extend the warranty.  The complainant was also informed for all parts replaced at the service centre he would get a 3 month warranty till December, 2012.  The complainant accepted the same.

          Subsequently on 22-10-2012, the complainant sent an email to the OP claiming that the OP had provided a broken hard drive.  The complainant was called back and informed that the service centre was closed and offered another follow up call to which the complainant agreed.  So, OP’s representative  Sridhar Gurumurthy again communicated the customer on 15-10-2012, when the complainant threatened to take legal action against the OP again if OP did not replace the system for or extend the warranty without a charge but the complainant was informed that the OP had repaired the system by replacing 26 parts including the hard drive.  The complainant was also informed that the hard drive cage was not replaced as the service centre engineers were able to fix the part.  The complainant was reminded that only those parts would be replaced which are beyond repair.  However, the complainant was offered the part replacement as a goodwill gesture for the complainant’s satisfaction issues. The complainant was not deceived but still threatening to take legal action but the OP’s representative Sridhar Gurumurthy again communicated the complainant on 29-10-2012, when the complainant agreed to visit the service centre and the part was also shipped to the Service Centre and thereafter the OP’s representative followed up on 21-10-2012 when the complainant refused to visit the Service Centre and informed that he would not accept any further service from the OP and go too Forum for legal action.  But under any circumstances OPs are not able to extend warranty or replacement of the system.  But, thereafter, complainant did not reply.  So, the case of the complainant was closed on 31-10-2012.

          Thereafter, OP’s representative Sridhar Gurumurthy again communicated the complainant on 14-02-2013 in response to the court summons when the complainant again demanded compensation and exchange of the old one but all the allegations are false and fabricated and are denied and so, they have prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with Reasons

On meticulous study of the complaint and written version including the warranty period it is found that warranty period expired on 12-09-2012.  But the present complaint was filed on 07-01-2013.  But from the complaint it is found that the complainant actually purchased this laptop on 30-07-2009 and original warranty expired on 25-10-2010.  Thereafter, year to year complainant renewed warranty in respect of AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) and as per complainant’s version Annual Maintenance Contract also expired on 12-09-2012 and considering the fact it is clear that complainant has been using this laptop since 30-07-2009 since purchase.

          It is undisputed fact that  all the defects of the laptop were caused due to accidental damage caused by the complainant in his house by Gas Cylinder.  So, it is clear that before that accident there was no defect in the said laptop of the complainant and the damage which was caused to the laptop of the complainant was for his own fault and as per AMC the laptop was not covered by warranty for accidental damage.   So, under any circumstances as per AMC contract which was valid for the period 12-09-2011 to 12-09-2012 complainant was not entitled to get any service from the Service Centre or the Dell Authority for such defects which was caused due to the fault of the complainant and it was practically fall down from the hand of the complainant and it hit gas cylinder etc. So considering the fact we are convinced that the present warranty for the said period was not covering the risk of accidental damage.

          But truth is that OPs even after that for good gesture exchanged 26 parts of the said laptop against AMC for that period and it is also proved that OPs again and again attended the complainant, sent their representative for satisfaction of the complainant and ultimately restored the entire system and complainant used it and fact remains that complainant has admitted in his complaint very specifically that DVD writer and hard disk were not in proper way but nowhere he stated that DVD writer and hard disk were defective but fact remains the same were changed and as because it fell down from the complainants or from his family members; hand and laptop was damaged and drive cage party was deformed so it was properly repaired because as per contract reparable parts cannot be changed and hard drive cage was not replaced and through sharp edges are there but that will not cause any injury in view of the fact the said hard drive(bracket) is covered by plastic and anyway it cannot cause injury unless the customer open the plastic cover.  But OP has stated that they also offered the complainant for replacement but complainant did not agree but complainant demanded for replacement of the entire laptop what the OP failed to appreciate or to admit and it was not possible for service centre to replace the same during AMC when the laptop was not damaged by the OPs or by any service centre.

          Considering all the above facts we are convinced to hold that AMC warranty does not cover any accidental damage of the laptop but even then OPs repaired the laptop of the complainant by changing 26 parts without charging any fees then what more service can be given to  such a consumer when original warranty period  already expired on 25-10-2010 and, if any, customer cannot maintain his laptop properly or keep it safely and handle it safely and for consumers fault if it falls from the hand or high place to ground and hit with any hard substance and laptop is damaged for that reason the company or service centre are not liable to replace the same and so question of replacement of system(laptop) does not arise and in this regard complainant’s claim is completely untenable in view of the AMC or further warranty.

          Practically we have gone through the entire written statement and complaint and the document of the complainant that OPs changed 26 parts at free of cost during AMC period(warranty) and fact remains that about one allegation regarding hard drive cage we have failed to understand for what reason complainant is insisting for replacement only for such defect but practically we have covered after handling the laptop though it is a compact system that the drive cage (bracket) was processed because it is original in nature but OP submitted that they are ready to replace that also and what was reported to the complainant but complainant demanded for replacement of the said entire laptop what OP refused.

          After considering this fact we are convinced that the complainant is very adamant and he wants a new set but fact remains he is not entitled to get any new set and entire allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated.  On the contrary, we have found that OP  rendered very good service by also changing 26 parts that there was fault on the part of the complainant for filing the same because that damage was caused due to the fault of his own or his family member that means the complainant or the family members were very casual in handling the laptop for which that accident took place and it is not the liability of the OPs to replace the same and even not to change any part.  Because as per warranty there is no accidental benefit but during AMC contract period OPs are bound to repair the same but in this case free service has been given by the OPs for replacing 26 parts that means the entire parts of the system has been changed and they are all new one.  No fees has been charged if all cost of service has been given then what more OP shall have to give such a customer.  Considering the above facts we are convinced that such a consumer must not be entertained under any circumstances by any Forum.  They are arrogant customers but customers must have to appear before Forum with honest approach for relief.  But honest approach in this case are not found but even then we have considerd that OPs not only served it free of cost but even after giving service time to time to protect their reputation  of the company sent representative only to observe whether the complainant is facing a trouble to use this laptop but about use of laptop there is no allegations.  That means laptop is running.  But considering the written version and the submission of the OP before this Forum we find that OPs are willing to replace the drive cage bracket so we are directing the OP to change the same and as and when same shall be changed the entire matter shall be treated as resolved and complainant’s further allegation shall not be entertained by any Forum.

          Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed with such direction to the OP.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the OPs by directing the OPs to change the  drive cage(bracket) at once and complainant shall have to place the same and OP shall have to complete it at once and invariably after compliance of this order by the OP, OP shall inform this Forum that same has been complied.