BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/836 of 22.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          29.8.2011

Preetinder Singh, aged 23 years s/o Sh. Harjit Singh R/o # 264, New Mehar Singh Colony, Tripuri, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

Dell India Pvt. Ltd. M-4, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Sunguvarchatram Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram  District Tamilnadu, through its Authorized Officer or Manager Sales.

                                                                             ----------Opposite party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.S.P.Sharma, Advocate

For op:                          None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          It is averred by the complainant that he had placed an order with the op for the purchase of Laptop 1 CTN through Pardeep Kulshreshtha, an employee of the op to whom the complainant had made the payment who further paid the price of the laptop to the op.

2.       It is further averred that op delivered the laptop at the address of the complainant on 1.10.2009 and thus the complainant is the purchaser and end user of the apparatus .All the services have been provided to the complainant at his given address, the purchase of the product being dated 26.9.2009.

3.       The complainant was delivered a defective laptop and the services provider changed more than 60% parts of the same but still the same was not working properly.

4.       On the complaint a hard drive ( 272 1400) was replaced on 2.1.2010 vide service tag no.JHZ-24BS and touch pad was replaced on 24.2.2010. The LCD was replaced twice on 2.3.2010 on which date a defective part was given and again on the complaint after a gap of 25 days the same was replaced with original.

5.       Again the product started giving trouble and on the complaint of the complainant on 25.6.2010, multiple issues were found and the parts developed faults and therefore, touch pad, hard drive, LCD, Bezel cover, hinge cover etc. were not working properly. The complainant also made a complaint that mother board and USBs were not functioning properly. The complainant asked for the replacement of the system. The official of the op approached the complainant and undertook to replace the same within 2 or 3 weeks. However, later on the op refused to replace the same. The complainant had written letters through courier no.9898395 dated 27.8.2010 and also sent e-mails bearing reference no.33181118 and 3332142 dated 23.8.2010 and 26.8.2010 respectively to the Dell Customer Care, but to no effect.

6.       It is further averred that on 6.9.2010 on the complaint of the complainant an inexperienced technician had come and who detected multiple issues i.e. fault in LCD, Keyboard, touch pad and mother board but who could not replace the same. Again on 14.9.2010 another technician had come and who replaced the LCD but the same was faulty. In the mean time something had gone wrong with the WIFI and mini card  stopped working. The LCD was not working properly and the complainant was delivered a defective piece. There was a warranty of one year upto 25.9.2010. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for the refund of Rs.41025/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the purchase of the laptop as the price of the product, to pay him Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the op and further to award him Rs.5500/- as costs.

7.       On notice, the op appeared and filed its written version. It is the plea taken up by the op that the laptop was ordered by employee Pardeep Kulshreshtha through ‘employee purchase programme’. The laptop was offered and bought at a heavily discounted price and was to be used strictly for home purposes and not for business as per the terms and conditions of the ‘employee purchase programme’. The order was shipped on 26.9.2009 to H.No.264, New Mehar Singh Colony, Tripuri, Patiala(Punjab).The op had at all times complied with the obligation under its warranty to the complainant. The services had to be cancelled on three different occasions on a fault of the complainant. The claimed palm rest was replaced on 24.2.2010. Service call for the LCD was completed on 31.3.2010 and the system was fixed. The complainant had denied the service once as the LCD part shipped was a LG product. The customer wanted a Samsung branded product. The complainant was informed that the part sent was an equivalent and the complainant had kept the part and the op arranged for another service call for the technician to replace the part. Op sent another LCD and mother board as back up. The complainant had called him on 24^th July 2010 and denied the service and demanded a system exchange for which the complainant was told to contact the respective department .The complainant again called on 26.4.2010 and demanded a refund, which was denied. The complainant was offered a whole unit replacement on 11.9.2010 without prejudice to its right. The representative of the op tried to reach the complainant three times on 13.9.2010 but was unable to  contact the complainant. The complainant was finally contacted on 14.9.2010 when the service call was completed. The complainant was again contacted on 15.9.2010 when he confirmed that the system was performing fine. Another service call was created on 22.9.2010 but the same was concelled by the complainant and on 29.9.2010 the complainant refused the service when the technician called to schedule an appointment.

8.       It is further averred that the op did arrange for the onsite service as and when the need arose. The op did everything possible as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The demand of the complainant for refund was respectfully denied as the system was around 300 days old , the demand having been made on 26.7.2010. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C6 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the op its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1 the sworn affidavit of Prabhakar R Pakalpati, authorized representative of the op alongwith the documents,Exs.R2 to R4 and its learned counsel closed the evidence.

11.     The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant, none having appeared on behalf of the op and gone through the evidence on record.

12.     It is the admitted case of the complainant that he had placed the order of the laptop through the employee Sh. Pardeep Kulshreshtha.Ex.C1, is the copy of the invoice no.00317453 dated 26.9.2009 for Rs.32820.80 in respect of the purchase of 84713010 Dell New Studio  1440 Laptop issued in the name of Pardeep Kulshreshtha H.No.264, New Mehar Singh Colony, Tripuri,Patiala.

13.     There is no document to show that the complainant had placed the order with the op for the purchase of one 1440 Laptop through Pardeep Kulshreshtha. Again there is no evidence to show that op had sent the laptop to Pardeep Kulshreshtha for being sold to the complainant Preetinder Singh. There is again no evidence with regard to the complainant having  made any payment to Pardeep Kulshreshtha or the payment having been made directly by the complainant to the op for the sale of the laptop. Therefore, the complainant cannot be treated, in any way to be a consumer of the op as per definition of the consumer given under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act.

14.     Ex.C2, the copy of the tax invoice was sent by the op in the name of Pardeep Kulshreshtha with a reference to invoice dated 26.9.2009.Simply because the shipping address of Pardeep Kulshreshtha is given as H.No.264 New Mehar Singh Colony, Tripuri,Patiala c/o complainant Preetinder would not mean that the product was sold to the complainant.

15.     It was for the complainant to have led the evidence that actually the laptop was purchased by him having made the payment from his pocket through Pardeep Kulshreshtha an employee of the op which was possible only in case the complainant either made Pardeep Kulshreshtha as an op or filed his affidavit in support of his claim, in the absence of which it is not possible for us to treat the complainant to be a consumer of the op, the laptop  never having been sold to the complainant by the op.

16.     Exs.C4 to C6 are the repair order forms dated 27.2.2010, 4/2010 and dated nil in respect of work of the laptop got done by the complainant from the op but that does not mean that the complainant is to be treated as a consumer of the op. The op admits having rendered the services in respect of lap top to the complainant but we find in the matter of filing of a complaint against op, the complainant had to show that he is the purchaser of the laptop for consideration and that too from the op.Simply because a person comes to get a laptop from the original purchaser does not become a consumer of the manufacturer of the laptop and therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer of the op and consequently he could not maintain the complaint before the Forum which is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated: 29.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President