Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/770/2014

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dell Authorised Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Chauhan

25 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/770/2014
Date of Institution	:	25/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	25/05/2016

 

 

Jarnail Singh s/o Sh. Pritam Singh resident of BCW Suraj Pur, Tehsil Kalka, District, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.     Dell Authorised Service Centre, SCO No.477-478, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.     Dell International Services India Private Limited, No.123, EPIP Phase-II, Shivalya, Whitefield Industrial Area, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560067.

 

3.     M/s Ambika Enterprises, SCO 42, Sector 11, Panchkula.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arvind Chauhan, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Jarnail Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Dell Authorised Service Centre and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased a Dell Aero mobile phone  amounting to Rs.14,500/- from OP-3 vide bill dated 21.7.2012.  After 4-5 days, the complainant started facing problems regarding hanging and loss of data in the mobile. The complainant sent his friend Jaswinder to the service centre i.e. OP-2 (OP-1?) on 26.7.2012 where the handset was handed over and he was told to come after 10 days.  However, despite 3-4 visits by the complainant, the handset was not repaired and subsequently he was shocked to find the office of OP-2 (OP-1) closed. When the complainant came to know the new office address of the service centre of Dell Company, he visited their office in May 2014 to enquire about his handset but he was given a vague answer that the same had been sent to the company. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written reply, OPs 1 & 2 have averred that the mobile was working fine for a long term, therefore, the same was not a defective one.  It has been contended that the complainant has not produced any expert report to prove manufacturing defect. It has further been contended that the OP-2 was ready to provide the handset replacement/refund to the complainant on his demand as a goodwill gesture.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs 1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         None appeared on behalf of OP-3 despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 12.1.2015 it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of OPs 1 & 2 and reiterated his own.
5.         The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Dell Aero mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 vide Bill Annexure A-1 on 21.7.2012 for Rs.14,500/-. Annexure A-2 is the job-sheet dated 26.7.2012 vide which the handset in question was submitted with the Opposite Party No.1 with the issue reported as touch not working. The main grouse of the Complainant is that till date the handset in question has not been returned to him and the Opposite Parties are keeping the same in their possession.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that the mobile handset in question was fine for a long time and no defect was reported. Further, it has been submitted by Opposite Party No.2 that it is ready for the replacement or the refund of the cost of the handset in question.
9.         Pertinently, the Opposite Party No.3 chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2015. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted against it. 
10.         After careful perusal of the file, it is evident that the handset in question was purchased on 21.07.2012 as per Annexure A-1 and the same was submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 for the required repairs on 26.07.2012 as per Annexure A-2, meaning thereby that the handset could not work even for a week and till date the same is in the custody of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Moreover, during the pendency of the Complaint, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have already offered the replacement or the refund of the cost of the handset to the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the concerted opinion that due to the irresponsible attitude of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has suffered a lot. We feel that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to satisfy the Complainant by getting his mobile handset repaired in a perfect manner, but instead of repairing the same they kept the brand new handset of the Complainant in their possession and the same has not been returned till date. This careless attitude of the Opposite Parties forced the Complainant to indulge into present unnecessary litigation. The Complainant had spent an amount of Rs.14,500/- to purchase the mobile having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties for selling a poor quality product to the Complainant, non-providing of services to the Complainant even being the said mobile handset within the warranty period and keeping the same in their possession clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant.
11.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under :-

(i)    To refund Rs.14,500/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the mobile handset;

(ii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;

(iii)  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

12.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

25/05/2016                                                        

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”