DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 707
Instituted on: 21.12.2016
Decided on: 25.04.2017
Sahil Jindal S/o Yash Pal Jindal C/o Yash Boot House, Near Bada Chowk, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. DELL India Private Limited, Registered Office, Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghtta Village, Varthur Hobli, Banglore South, Karnataka.
2. Dell International Services India Private Limited, Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, Annexe A, Sr.No. 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghtta Village, Kormangala Intermediate Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore, Karnataka.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.
For Ops : Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Sahil Jindal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that in the month of July, 2012 he visited the website of the OPs and ordered for inspiration 17R Turbo (7720)BTX base having value of Rs.99,599.84 including the charges of two years additional warranty and the complainant make the payment through NEFT from Sangrur and as such, the Ops delivered the product vide bill number 90201200108 dated 2.8.2012 and the said product was having one year warranty meaning thereby the product had a warranty of three years and the warranty expired on 30.10.2015.
2. Further case of the complainant is that he received email dated 29.9.2015 from the OPs and sent the quotation for one year additional warranty for Rs.8500/- and two years warranty for Rs.14,000/- including complete cover. Further case is that similar mail was received on 12.10.2015 and as such, on 15.10.2015 the complainant paid the amount of Rs.14,000/- through NEFT in the bank account of the OP bearing account number 0035439005 maintained in City Bank Bangalore for getting two years additional warranty. Further case of the complainant is that on the same day i.e. 15.10.2015 the complainant received an email from the OPs wherein it was told that the warranty is extended for one year as the DELL can support hardware up to 4 years from the date of manufacture/shipment. Further case of the complainant is that on 3.11.2015, 9.11.2015, 13.11.2015 the complainant sent the reminders to the OP for extending the warranty for two years more, but no reply was received, nor the OP refunded the amount of Rs.14,000/- so sent by the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to give the additional warranty of two years and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply filed by Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that dispute in hand involves complicated questions of law and facts, that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that the complaint has been filed without any legal justifiable cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that the product was purchased by the complainant and the product was having three years warranty, which expired on 30.10.2015. It is further averred that the complainant inquired about the warranty extension and the price of it, as such the representative of the Op via email dated 12.10.2015 replied to the query generated by the complainant. However, it has been stated that the warranty and hardware supply can only be granted upto four years from the date of manufacture. It is further stated that as a goodwill gesture, the complainant was offered one year warranty and a refund of rest of the amount. It has been stated that the complainant has filed a false complaint by twisting the true facts. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 affidavit and copies of emails and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.Op2/ copy of warranty details, Ex.OP/3 copy of warranty extension, Ex.OP-4 copy of service description, Ex.OP-5 copy of detail of warranty product, Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-9 copies of emails and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the Dell laptop in question vide invoice dated 2.8.2012 which was having a warranty up to 30.10.2015. The case of the complainant is that thereafter on 15.10.2015 the complainant received an email from the Ops offering further warranty of two years for Rs.14,000/-, as such, accepting the offer of the Ops, the complainant sent an amount of Rs.14,000/- through NEFT to the Ops, which is also an admitted fact of the Ops.
7. In the present case, the dispute is over the none extension of the warranty of two years for the laptop in question, despite the fact the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.14,000/- through NEFT to the OPs. Though it is the case of the Ops that they offered the complainant an extended warranty of one year i.e. for the fourth year, but the fact remains that the Ops did not refund to the complainant the balance amount for the extended warranty of fifth years. The complainant has also drawn our attention towards the copy of email dated 29.09.2015 sent by the Ops, Ex.C-3, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that “Additional 1 year NBD with CC warranty for Rs.8500/- and additional 2 years NBD with CC warranty for Rs.14,000/- and further it has been mentioned there in that Dell can support hardware only upto 5 years from the date of manufacture/shipment. As such, the contention raised by the Ops that Dell can provide the warranty of the product up to maximum of four years falsifies from this document Ex.C-3. We may mention that if the OPs were unable to provide the warranty for fifth year, then why they kept the warranty charges of the complainant so paid to the OPs for the fifth years. There is nothing on record to show that the Ops ever refunded the charges for the warranty for fifth years. Even the Ops did not show the courtesy before this Forum to refund the charges for the fifth year. As such, there is no question for the Ops not to provide the warranty for the fifth year i.e. upto 30.10.2017. Further, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
8. In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to extend the warranty of the laptop in question upto 31.10.2017. OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 25, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
