15.02.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

        Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986  has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 20/ 01/ 2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in C C No 06 of 2013 which reads as under:-

          “That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the O.Ps 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 O.P.  OP shall inform this Forum that same has been complied”.

        The facts of the case in a nutshell, are that the Appellant/Complainant purchased one laptop of Dell make from Respondent/OP3 on 03/07/2009.The initial warranty on the system, as it reveals from the reply of the Respondents/Ops 1 and 2, expired on 25/08/ 2010.The warranty was, however, extended on payment from 12/09/2011 to 12/09/2012.Meanwhile,on 02/08/2012, the laptop was accidentally damaged by the gas cylinder. The damage was reported to the authorized service centre of Dell, being Respondent/OP No 1 who primarily refused to render any service as the damage to the laptop was caused due to negligence on the part of the Appellant /Complainant but, subsequently, after constant dialogue and communication with Consumer Service Head of Dell India Pvt.Ltd., the Respondent/OP-2, the Respondent/OP-1 rendered services during the period from10/09/2012 to 12/09/2012 by way of replacement of certain parts. The repaired laptop, on delivery from the service centre, being found still non-functioning, the laptop was sent to the same service centre for the second time. The services were further rendered during the period from19/09/2012 to 22/09/2012, that is, on expiry of warranty with no improvement being seen once again on delivery.

        The Respondents/Ops1 and 2, thereafter, refused to render any further services which led the aggrieved Appellant/Complainant file the complaint before the Ld. District Forum. The impugned judgment and order relates to the said complaint case.

        Heard Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant/complainant who submitted that the damaged laptop was sent for the first time within the period of warranty.  Since there was no improvement in the functioning of the laptop, the same was sent for repairing to the said service centre for the second time.  The laptop, however, as the Ld. Advocate contended, showed no sign of improvement even after second time repairing. Unfortunately, the further claim of the Appellant/Complainant for rendering due services to make the laptop functioning was not entertained by the Respondents/Ops 1 and 2.

        None appeared on behalf of Respondents/O.P. Nos. 1 & 2.

        Heard Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent /OP 3 who submitted that the Respondent/OP 3, being the dealer only, has been unnecessarily dragged into this case. It was submitted that the laptop which was sold by him to the Appellant/Complainant on 03/07/09 was not a damaged and defective one. The Appellant/Complainant was given a warranty of only one year by the Respondent/OP 3.Since the laptop was damaged beyond the period of warranty given by the Appellant/OP3, as the Ld.advocate contended, it was beyond the capacity of the Respondent/OP 3 to offer any service. The Ld. Advocate contended further that it is the Respondents/Ops 1and 2 who had extended the warranty period and were, therefore, liable to provide services. The Ld. Advocate,      pointing out the impugned judgment and order, submitted that the directions were passed by the Ld.District Forum upon the Respondents/ Ops 1 and 2 only. It was also pointed out that the Respondent/OP-3, as a dealer, is hardly having any capacity to render any additional service after expiry of the warranty given by him.

        Perused the papers on record. Subsequent direction upon the Respondents Ops, after the complaint being dismissed on contest, as it reveals from the impugned order, appears to be confusing. Record reveals that the laptop was sent for repairing within the period of coverage by extended warranty. The prayer for repairing was entertained by the Respondents /OPs 1 and 2 without, however, the laptop being effectively repaired. Therefore, he cannot be fully absolved of his liability of repairing the laptop till it becomes fully functional.

        The Respondents/OP 3, being the dealer, is not, in any way, responsible for rendering service particularly at a time when the warranty period, as was given by him in the capacity as a dealer, had expired.

        Keeping in view the depreciation of the value of the laptop after the same being constantly used for the period from 03/07/2009 to 02/08/2012 and also the circumstances as narrated hereinabove, we are of considered view that the appeal be allowed in part.

        Hence, it is ordered that the Respondents/Ops 1 and 2 shall pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs 5000/-only to the Appellant/Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of the impugned judgment and order, failing which, simple interest @9% shall accrue to the said amount of compensation from the date of default till the said amount is realized. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. We make no order as to costs.