Orissa

Cuttak

CC/94/2021

Dr Somanath Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dell India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S Sahoo

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C.No.94.2021

Dr. Somanath Sethi,

S/O:Late Krushna Chandra Sethi,

Presently residing At:Raghunath Murmu Medical College & Hospital,

Rangamatia,Laxmiposi,Baripada,

Mayurbhanj-757001,Odisha.                                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Dell India Private Limited,

Represented through its Director,Divyashree Greens,

Ground Floor,#12/1,12/2A,13/1A,

Challanghatta Village,Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore South,Bangalore-560071.

 

2.        M/s. Tech Link (The Dell Exclusive Store),

Represented through its Proprietor,

At:Opp. Mahavir Apartment,Arunodoya Market,

Link Road,Cuttack-753012,

Odisha.               

 

3.        Dell International Services India Private Limited,

123,        EPIP Zone,Whitefield,

Bangalore,Karnataka-560066.                                                         ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.05.2021

Date of Order:  29.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mrs. Sagarika Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 3 :         Mr. R.L.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.2          :        Mr. C.M.Singh,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

            Case of the prosecution in short is that he had purchased a Laptop bearing model No.Dell Inspiron-G3-3579-C17 Laptop” on 24.9.2018 for a price of Rs.91,400/-.  Warranty of the said Laptop was covered under premium support with an express service code bearing No.21542145338 which was to expire on 24.9.2021.  On 14.7.19 the key board backlit led light of the complainant did not function for which he required the assistance of O.P No.1.  On 16.7.19, the complainant had filed a complaint but the Dell Technical Support team of the O.P No.1 had refused to accept the complaint but later on they had received the complaint at a belated stage on 29.7.19 i.e, after 13 days of the defect being noticed.  The Engineer of the O.P visited the complainant but could not rectify the said defect, instead, the complaint was abruptly closed.  The complainant had to send a legal notice to the O.Ps on 29.7.19 and had sent e.mail to that effect also.  The Laptop subsequently had developed several defects like the windows were shutting down repeatedly with fatal errors, the touch pad was not working properly, the laptop hinge was very tight to open and was making noises and there were defects in optane module also.  Thus, ultimately the complainant has filed this case, when he could know that the O.Ps were insisting to provide him with the refurbished product.  The complainant has claimed for replacement of the said Laptop with the same model with all the warranty extended as earlier or in the alternative, to refund the consideration amount of Rs.91,400/- along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 14.7.19.  The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment and has further claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation cost.  The complainant has also prayed for reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of all the connecting documents in order to establish his case.

2.         On the other hand, out of three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, all of them have contested the case but O.Ps No.1 & 3 have conjointly filed their written version whereas O.P No.2 has filed his separate written version.

            As per the written version of O.Ps No.1 & 3, they had not caused any deficiency in service nor had they practised unfair trade.  They had offered replacement system to the complainant vide e.mail dt.2.4.20 to which the complainant had disagreed.  They admit about the laptop purchased by the complainant and about the defects.  They intended to resolve the issue amicably to which the complainant had disagreed.  They have relied upon  decisions which are: in the case of G.M. Gupta Vrs. Colson Bath & Spa Pvt. Ltd. and others,
Delhi State Commission in F.A.No.5213/2017 and thus have stated that the complaint case is not liable for any damage and is rather to be rejected.

            They have filed a copy of the e.mail as sent by them to the complainant vide Annexure-A.

            The O.P No.2 in his written version has stated that he is only the seller of the product which was manufactured by O.P No.1 and thus he has absolutely no role to play in the present case.  He admits about the purchase of the Dell Inspiron-G3-3579-C17 Laptop by the complainant on 24.9.18 from him.  According to O.P No.2, the defects developed therein were directly handled by the O.P No.1.  He being the product-seller has no scope of knowledge regarding the quality of the product.  Thus he has prayed to reject the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written versions, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps had caused deficiency in their service?

            iii.        Whether the O.Ps had practised any unfair trade?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issues No.2 & 3.

            Out of four issues, issues no.2 & 3 being the pertinent issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Laptop for a consideration of Rs.91,400/- from the O.Ps which was covered under extended warranty premium support and was valid till 24.9.2021.  Admittedly the Laptop had developed certain defects on 14.7.19.  The copy of service report vide Annexure-2 as filed by the complainant goes to show that his Laptop was given for repair to the O.Ps.  Annexure-4 is another service report which also specifies about the defect in the Laptop.  Annexure-5 series are the e.mail correspondences of the complainant.  Annexure-6 is another copy of service report which establishes repeated recurring defects in the purchased Laptop of the complainant.  Annexure-7 series are also copies of the e.mail correspondences in between the complainant and the O.Ps.  Thus there is nothing to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that after purchasing, his Laptop had developed several defects for which on several occasions it was given for repair but was not made to his satisfaction.  No consumer/customer has ample time to waste by running to the authorised service centre of the O.Ps in order to repair, rather, under compelling circumstances the complainant was forced to run in order to remove the defects of his Laptop which was well within the warranty period.  Thus, the plea of the O.Ps that there was no deficiency in their service does not hold good and by not acting promptly to the customer/complainant, whose Laptop had developed several defects, the O.Ps thereby had indeed caused unfair trade practice.  Accordingly these two important issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues No.1 & 4.

            From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable when filed and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  The decision as relied upon by the O.Ps do not suffice into the present facts and circumstances of this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable in this case and the plea as taken by the O.P product-seller(O.P. No.2) that he is protected from any liability does not hold good.  The O.Ps are thus directed to replace the defective Laptop of the complainant immediately within a month of receiving this order by providing him another Laptop of the same model and price and if not available, to refund the consideration amount of Rs.91,400/- as paid to them by the complainant together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 24.9.18 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment and litigation fees as incurred by him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member