BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

16^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him total compensation of Rs.86,000/-, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant had purchased a Dell Monitor on 14^th July, 2012 from a shop at Bangalore along with other computer accessories.  That the said Dell Monitor had a warranty of three years and it was multimedia monitor with ports – VGA, DVI, HDMI and Audio in and Audio Out.  That the said monitor suddenly became faulty in the month of May 2015, for which complainant raised complaint with OP on 18^th May 2015.  That OP delivered a monitor on 25^th May 2015, as a replacement and took the monitor of complainant.  That the monitor replaced by OP and given to complainant was having VGA and DVI ports only.  Whereas the monitor of the complainant had 5 ports.  That the complainant needs all the ports for his usage.  Therefore, he raised the issue with OP and requested them for replacement with a monitor having same number of ports.  That OP agreed and stated that they will verify if the monitor of the complainant has that many ports.  That after confirming, they agreed to replace a suitable monitor again.  That OP delivered another replacement on 04^th June 2015 but again the said monitor with UGA & DVI only.  That the complainant again raised this issue with OP stating that the monitor purchased by him was multimedia and that they are providing replacement with monitor have VGA & DVI only and requested them to provide with a correct replacement.  OP told sorry and promised that they will replace it again stating they will not mistake this time.  Thereafter, OP replaced another monitor and this also had only VGA and DVI ports only therefore the complainant returned it to OP.  Thereafter, OP informed the complainant that they have monitor similar to their original monitor having 5 ports and 4^th time they replaced the monitor.  That when checked complainant found that the said monitor was not working.  That after careful examination the complainant found that the serial number of the said monitor was tallying with the serial number of the monitor which the complainant had purchased.  Thus the OP has replaced with the very same old monitor of complainant which he had given them for replacement as it was not functioning.  Thereafter, the complainant had series of mail communications with OP and they told him that they have no monitor having 5 ports with them and they can give him a monitor having 2 ports (lower version).  That the complainant stated that, he cannot accept a monitor of lower version.  That the complainant further gave option to OP that if they did not have high end monitor then they should repair the monitor and return to him.  OP stated that they did not repair the monitor and can only replace the monitor.

That the conduct of OP in not replacing the monitor with same ports, amounts to deficiency of service.  The said monitor started giving problem within warranty period and OP is bound to replace a suitable monitor in terms and conditions of warranty.  Further OP stated that they would not be able to replace the monitor after 14^th July 2015, on which date the warranty will expire.  That OP without there being valid cause put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience by failing to replace the monitor with a multimedia monitor of the same capacity.  That the complainant has undergone huge mental harassment due to the inadequate and deficient service rendered by OP and thus has suffered loss of productivity and mental agony for which OPs are liable to pay him a sum of Rs.80,000/-.  That the complainant has also incurred expenses of Rs.500/- towards telephone calls, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges to visit to Consumer Court and other expenses.  Therefore, the complainant prays for an order directing OP to pay him a total compensation of Rs.86,000/-.   

3. In response to the notice, OP entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version.  The sum and substance of the version are as under:

That it is true that, complainant purchased a Dell Monitor on July 14, 2012 from Multiple Computers, Bangalore.  That the complainant has used the said monitor for a period of two years 10 months with complete satisfaction and approached the OP for the first time on May 18, 2015.  That since the monitor was working properly till May 18, 2015 hence there is no manufacturing defect in the said monitor.  On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  That the product in question has warranty of three years and as such warranty on the said product valid till July 14, 2015.  That as per warranty clause, OP is to carry out the repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty and in case the warranty of the product has expired or warranty clauses are violated, then the company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the Consumer.  That when complainant for the first time on May 18, 2015 contacted OP with issues with this monitor, representative of OP informed the complainant that the said monitor will be picked up and replacement of the monitor will be provided and the same was accepted by the complainant.  That due to unavailability of the same model of the monitor, OP dispatched another model to the complainant that though the complainant confirmed that the said monitor was working properly but complained that he did not have all the ports as the earlier model had.  That the complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions has filed the present complaint and is wrongfully trying to extract compensation from OP without any deficiency of service on their part.  That OP has not violated any terms or conditions of their warranty policy.  That OP has provided their services without any delay or negligence whenever asked by the complainant.

That though OP was ready for another replacement with similar model which was available with them, but the said offer was declined by the complainant and complainant adamantly demanded replacement of monitor along with compensation which was denied by the OP.  Though OP has replaced with a proper functional monitor, the complainant is unnecessarily making issue and trying to extract money from OP for his unlawful gain.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP as alleged in the complaint.  For the above, amongst other reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating their respective contentions.  The complainant as well as OP produced certain documents in support of their case.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.  We have also heard the oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7.  It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a Dell Monitor on 14^th July, 2012 from a shop at Bangalore with other computer accessories.  Complainant has produced the copy of invoice.  It is also not in dispute that, the said product is covered with three years warranty and prior to expiry of the warranty period the product became faulty, for which complainant raised a complaint with OP on 18^th May 2015.  In response to the complaint raised by the complainant, OP replaced the said monitor with another monitor on 25^th May 2015 and collected the faulty monitor from the complainant.

8. Complainant alleges that, the monitor which was given to him as a replacement, though was functional but having VGA – DVI ports only instead of 5 ports which the original monitor had.  Therefore, he raised another complaint with OP asking them to replace the same with a monitor having same number of ports.  OP after verifying with the monitor of the complainant, agreed to replace another monitor with 5 ports.  However, the replacement given to him on 4^th June 2015 was having only VGA – DVI instead of 5 ports (VGA, DVI, HDMI, Audio in & out ports).

9. There is no satisfactory explanation from OP as to why they replaced a monitor of lower version to the complainant despite knowing the fact that the monitor purchased by the complainant on 14^th July 2012 was a multimedia and having 5 ports.  Though OP replaced the monitor twice but every time they replaced it with lower version instead of replacing it with 5 ports.

10. Thereafter, the complainant has sought for proper replacement and in response to the same OP for the third time has replaced the monitor but again a lower version, having only two ports.  Therefore, the complainant has again returned it to the OP.  We don’t understand the conduct of OP in replacing the monitor with lower version even on third time.  The OP is certainly bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty.  Whenever the product becomes faulty within warranty period, OP is liable to either repair the said product or replace the said product with a similar product within warranty period.  Though the product has developed defect within warranty period OP has failed to replace it with a similar product to the complainant and also have failed to repair it and rectify the defects.

11. When the complainant brought to our notice that, the third replacement of the monitor is also lower version OP has replaced the same with another monitor stating that the same has 5 ports and on verifying the serial number, the complainant found that the said monitor is his own monitor purchased on 14^th July 2012 and is not functional and was taken back by the OP for replacement.  This conduct of OP in replacing the very same old monitor which is defective and non functional, certainly amounts to grave deficiency of service.  If at all OP did not had a proper monitor in their stock, they should have got the said monitor repaired and returned it to complainant in a functional position.  However, OP neither replaced the said monitor with a proper monitor of the same version nor got the said monitor repaired and rectified the defect.  This conduct of OP is certainly unbecoming of a Multinational Company like the OP.  The said conduct of OP in replacing a defective monitor shows their quality of service and apathy towards their customers.  OP certainly bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty and they are liable to replace a proper monitor to the complainant after collecting the monitor which they have delivered to him claiming to be a functional monitor.

12. The various e-mail communications produced by the complainant goes to show that despite his repeated requests the OP has indulged itself in giving improper replacement despite knowing the fact that the monitor of the complainant was having 5 ports.  The said conduct of OP must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  The complainant claims that because of the said conduct of OP he suffered loss of productivity to an extent of Rs.80,000/-.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the OP either to replace the defective monitor with similar functional monitor or else refund the price of the monitor to the complainant.  Further the OP has to be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.   

14. In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to replace the monitor in question with a functional monitor of the same version or refund the price of the monitor to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of the order.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency of service resulting in great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant, together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 16^th day of January 2017)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 08.12.2015.

1. Sri.Asish Kumar Roy

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 08.03.2016.

1. Sri.Nitesh Ranjan.    

Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

   MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

      Vln*