Haryana

Karnal

CC/50/2016

Sanjay Sharma S/o Haridev Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dell India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Sharma

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 50 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt. 11.02.2016

                                                     Date of decision 09.01.2018

 

Sanjay Sharma son of Shri Haridev Sharma resident of near Post Office, Old Anaj Mandi Safidon City Tehsil Safidon District Jind (Haryana)

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Dell India Pvt. Limited, Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor # 12/1, 12/2A, 13/IA, Challaghatte village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore-5600071.

2. M/s Varun Electronics, through its Managing Director Karnal-132001 (Haryana) through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

                                                    

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……….Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Naveen Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

              Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

              Shri S.D. Chaudhary Advocate for OP no.2.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a new Dell Laptop Model F3 4/1 TB Sr. no.5L7V712 from OP no.2, vide bill no.707 dated 8.1.2015 for Rs.31,500/- in cash with two years warranty. OP no.1 was the manufacturer of the said laptop and OP no.2 was the dealer of OP no.1. After purchasing of the laptop on the next day i.e. 9.1.2015 it has come to know that the said Laptop was having manufacturing defect. He brought this fact to the knowledge of OP no.2. He also made complaint no.9207335008. He asked the OP no.2 to change the Laptop or to return the sale price but OP no.2 refused to do so and defective laptop has been handed over by the OP no.2 to the complainant by alleging that OP no.1 was not replacing the Laptop nor agreed to pay the sale price of the Laptop. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 17.12.2015 through his counsel in that regard but no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant had purchased a Dell Laptop bearing Service Tag no.5L7V712 on 8.1.2015 from OP no.2 after having full satisfaction with the said product. The laptop in question carries a warranty for a period of one year and under the warranty clause, the company is to carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty. OP no.1 is not aware about the conversation between complainant and OP no.2. Complainant had never reported any technical issue. The complainant reported only battery issues and the battery replaced. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to limitation. On merits, it has been submitted that company had given only one year warranty and not two years as alleged by the complainant. The warranty was started from the date of purchase i.e.8.1.2015 and expired on 7.1.2016. The complainant never informed that there was any manufacturing defect in the laptop of any kind. The complainant never lodged any complaint with OP no.2, neither OP no.2 issues any such big complaint number to the complainant, it is the service centre managed by the company who issues such like complaint numbers. This is false that the complainant ever contacted the OP no.2 in connection of the alleged complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 24.1.2017

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitesh Ranjan Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Radhey Shyam Gupta Ex.RW2/A and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased a Dell Laptop Model F3 4/1 TB Sr. no.5L7V712 from OP no.2, vide bill no.707 dated 8.1.2015 for Rs.31,500/- manufactured by OP no.1.

8.             The complainant alleged that on the next day i.e. on 9.1.2015 the complainant came to know that the said laptop was having manufacturing defect and not working properly. It was brought to the notice of OP no.2, who told that there is manufacturing defect and laptop would have sent to OP no.1 for removing the defect and took the laptop from the complainant. The complainant also made complaint no. 9207335008. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the OP no.2 to replace the laptop or to return the sale price but the OP no.2 refused to do so. It is also alleged that there was warranty of two years.

9.             The OP no.1 contended that OP no.1 is not aware about the conversation between complainant and OP no.2. It is further contended that as per record maintained by OP no.1, the complainant has never reported any technical issue, however the complainant approached to OP no.1 on 21.5.2015 and reported battery issue with system and as per warranty entitlement the battery was replaced and issue was resolved. It is further contended that OP no.1 does not have any record of case number 9207335008 or any complaint made from the number. It is further contended that as per warranty policy, if there is any issue with the product then the same is to be reported directly to authorize service centre of OP no.1 to get proper solution. OP no.1 stated that warranty was one year only and not for two years as alleged.

10.           The OP no.2 contended that the warranty was given to the complainant only one year and warranty was given by OP no.1 and not by OP no.2. It is further contended that the complainant never lodged any complaint with OP no.2 and neither the OP no.2 issues any such big complaint number to the complainant. It is the service centre managed by the company who issues such like complaint numbers. It is further contended that the complainant never contacted the OP no.2 in connection with alleged complaint.

11.           From the above facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the complainant are denied by the OPs, so to prove the allegations, the onus was upon the complainant. To prove his allegation, the complainant produced in his evidence, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill/invoice copy Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, postal receipts Ex.C-3 and acknowledgement Ex.C-4. The complainant has not produced any job sheet to prove that the complainant had made any complaint to the service centre or to the OPs about the allegations alleged by him. The complainant alleged that he came to know next day i.e. on 9.1.2015 that there was manufacturing defect in the laptop but the complainant has not produced any document to prove the same. Moreover, the complainant issued the legal notice on 17.12.2015 when he came to know about defects on 9.1.2015. This fact itself falsify the version of complainant because the complainant has not explained that why he remained silent for such a long time. It is pertinent to mention here that OP no.1 stated that the complainant approached him on 21.5.2015 regarding battery issue and the battery has been replaced which means the laptop was having no other problem till 21.5.2015 and this fact also falsify the version of complainant that the laptop was defective on 9.1.2015. The complainant has not produced any report from the expert that the laptop was having any manufacturing defect. Moreover, it is for the complainant to prove his allegations by cogent evidence but the complainant has not produced any such evidence vide which it can said that the laptop in question was having defect or manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegation made by him in his complaint. No deficiency is proved on the part of the OPs.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 09.01.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                   (Veena Rani)      (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member             Member