Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/485/2015

Mukesh Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dell Coputer India pvt. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Gupta & Dinesh Goel Adv.

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	485 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	31.8.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Mukesh Mittal S/o R.K. Mittal R/o H. No.1526, Sector 18D, Chandigarh.  

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.12/1, 12/2A,13/1A Ground Floor, Divyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur, Hubli, Domlur Bangalore 560071 through its corporate head/Managing Director (Manufacturer of Dell Laptop)
2. Dell authorized service centre SCO No.99-100, 1^st floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017 through its Regional Manager. (Authorized repairer of Dell Laptop).
3. M/s Infinite Retailer Ltd. (CROMA), SCO No.1094-95, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (Authorized seller of Dell Laptop).

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

Present    

 

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. for the complainant.

Ms. Neeru Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs No.1&2 (Exparte)

OP No.3 exparte.

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased one Laptop inspiron 7537 of Dell Computers India from OP No.3 on 16.8.2014 for Rs. 81,900/- having two years warranty  from the date of purchase (Annexure C-1). It is alleged that from the beginning of its purchase the laptop did not work satisfactorily it gave problem of hanging, power on off  and other problem and  despite on approaching OPs NO. 3 &2 in August, 2014, 16.10.2014, 2.6.2015 and 14.7.2015 (Annexure C-2) for its repair they could not rectify the defect in the laptop in question. It is further alleged that despite getting the laptop repaired from the service centre of OPs thrice it is still not working properly. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, a legal notice dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure C-3) was served upon the OPs but in vain. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.81,900/- alongwith compensatory cost and litigation expenses with interest.

 

2.      The OP No.1&2 filed their reply alongwith an affidavit of Sh. Nitish Ranjan an authorized representative of OPs No.1&2 stating that the complainant had purchased the laptop on 16.8.2014 after having full satisfaction with the product which had warranty of one year not of two years as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. It is stated that the complainant took the laptop again with OP No.2 in June 2015 when the issue was resolved by replacing the motherboard. The complainant admittedly again raised a complaint through Ashoka reporting no power issue but the defect could not be rectified due to non-cooperation by the complainant himself and also due to his insistent for replacement of laptop with new one. All other allegations have been denied being wrong.
3.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply filed on 12.11.2015stated that it buys various electronic products from different manufacturers in bulk quantities at trade/volume discounts and then sell the same to consumers on an order by order basis. The OP No.3  stated that it has created only a platform to connect the manufacturer to the potential customers and  is not liable for any defect in the product for which the manufacturer is solely responsible.   Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed being frivolour. The OP No.3 however did not turn up on 18.1.2016 and proceeded exparte.
4.     The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No.1&2 and have also perused the evidence on record.
6.     The Consumer Protection Act, grants a purchaser the right to receive goods that are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects and that will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time, having regard and the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surroundings circumstances of their supply.
7.     Defects are regarded as being of two kinds latent or patent. Patent defects are those that can be discovered by inspection and ordinary vigilance on the part of the purchaser with respect to these the ordinary rule is caveat emptor.
8.     Latent defects are those which would not be revealed by any enquiry which a purchaser is in a position to make before entering in a position to make before entering the contract.
9.     The Consumer Protection Act, rule 2(f) defines: defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
10.     The Laptop sold has a defect, which viewed objectively, substantially impaired its utility or effectiveness for the purpose for which it was sold or for which it is commonly used.  The defect existed at the time of sale. The defect was latent, in other words it was not visible or discoverable upon inspection.  The purchaser was unaware of the defect. Objectively speaking the purchaser would not have purchased the object had he known of the object
11.     The complainant has been suffering constantly since the purchase of laptop on 16.8.2014. The laptop which the complainant had bought from the OPs, has a defect which substantially impaired its utility for the purpose it was bought.
12.     The contention raised by OPs No.1&2 in their reply regarding warranty of one year only instead of 2 years warranty is misconceived. As per invoice Annexure C-1, the goods purchased from Infinite Retailer Ltd. (CROMA) OP No.3 were having two years warranty on all branded products is envisaged/authorized.
13.     From the above facts and circumstances, it is apparent that OP No.2 has replaced the motherboard of the laptop in question in June 2015 and the laptop has again developed error of no power as admitted by OPs No.1&2 in their reply filed in this matter.
14.     From the facts as discussed above in the preceding paragraph the laptop purchased by the complainant had manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve its promise to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.
15.     The complaint as such allowed with the directions to the OPs jointly and severally to refund Rs.81,900/- to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- within 30 days  from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16.     If OPs failed to comply with the order within the above stipulated period, they shall jointly and severally liable to further pay compensatory cost to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
17.     The complainant shall also return the defective laptop with its accessories to the OPs on receiving refund thereof as ordered above.

 

    The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20.2.2017

                                                                                            Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER