Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/368/2020

Vipul Babuta, (Advocate) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dell India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/368/2020
Date of Institution	:	10/08/2020
Date of Decision	:	16/09/2024

       

                                       

                       

 

 

Vipul Babuta (Advocate), #1075, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh c/o Bar Room No.30, New Bar Complex, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

1.Dell India Private Limited, through its Managing Director/CEO, Corporate and Marketing Office Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore-560071.

2.S.T. Computers, SCO-495, FF, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 150036.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-
	Complainant in person (through VC)
	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for OP-1 (through VC)
	None for OP-2 (Defence already struck off)

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that he purchased a Dell Laptop (Model Inspiron 5482 2-in-1) from OP-2 vide invoice dated 22.7.2019 (Annexure C-1) for ₹49,000/-.  At the time of purchase of the aforesaid laptop, complainant was convinced by OP-2 regarding its best and superior quality with latest technology (software and hardware).  OP-2 also assured the complainant that in case any problem arose in the laptop in future, it would exchange the same free of cost. However, complainant felt disappointed as the said laptop was very slow and kept on hanging in between while using. Thereafter, complainant got the said laptop checked from OP-2 who informed that as the machinery was new, it would take few days to operate and perform efficiently. As the problem persisted, complainant requested OP-2 in September, 2019 to either refund the money or to replace the aforesaid laptop but it refused and agreed to only repair the same.  Accordingly, complainant handed over the said laptop to OP-2 and collected the same on the next day and OP-2 assured that he would not face any problem as the windows and software had been reinstalled.  However, the problem still persisted and OP-2 again refused to replace the product or refund the money. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP-1 on its customer care a number of times but with no success. On 15.3.2020 complainant sent an email (Annexure C-3) and in response he was told to perform some basic updates by self only and the complaint was closed. The complainant again registered complaint vide email dated 15.5.2020 (Annexure C-4) with the Dell technical support but the same was also closed by instructing him to perform some updates.  OP-1 admitted that the RAM installed (4 GB) was of lesser capacity due to which said laptop was not working properly. However, instead of removing the defect, OP-1 vide email dated 15.5.2020 (Annexure C-4) asked the complainant to pay ₹6,813/- to upgrade the RAM to 16 GB despite the fact that the same was having manufacturing defect from day one and was even under warranty. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.        In its written version OP-1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the laptop in question.  However, it is denied that the laptop sold is defective.  It is averred that on receiving the complaint, Dell technical support performed the hardware test as per protocol and the test was passed. It is further averred that the complainant had bought the laptop with basic configuration and it works accordingly and he was informed that if he wishes, he can opt for upgradation.  On the request of the complainant regarding upgradation, quotation for upgrade to 16 GB RAM was shared with him with price.   It is stated that as a goodwill gesture, OP had installed 256 GB SSD (hard drive) free of cost after which the performance of the system drastically improved but the complainant wanted the 16 GB RAM free of cost which was denied.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        Since OP-2 failed to file written version within the stipulated period of 45 days granted by this Commission, as provided under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 86 and M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Manisha Bhargava & Anr., II (2021) SLT 201, its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 18.1.2022.
4.        The contesting parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        The complainant chose not to file replication.
6.        We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for OP-1 and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
7.        The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the laptop in question on 22.7.2019 from OP-2 by paying total consideration of ₹49,000/- and it started giving trouble within the warranty period itself upon which he made complaints to the OPs to resolve the same. On the other hand, the defence of the OPs is that the laptop in question was tested by their technician and the test was passed and there is no fault in the same. 
8.        It is observed from the record that though the OPs have stated that they had conducted the test as per protocol and the laptop, in question, passed the said test but they have not placed on record any such test report to corroborate their version.   Hence, mere bald submission of the OPs that the test as per protocol was conducted and the device (i.e. the laptop in question) passed the same is not enough until and unless report of such test is placed on record and tendered in evidence as a proof by the OPs.  Hence, in the absence of the same, it is safe to hold that the OPs have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon them by law.
9.        Moreover, complainant had time and again lodged complaints with the OPs about the defects in the laptop in question which were not resolved by them.  As such, the laptop in question sold by the OPs did not fulfil the requirements of the complainant and did not perform the required functions for which the same was purchased by him.  Thus, it is safe to hold that the act and conduct of the OPs in supplying a defective product and even failing to provide the after sale services to the complainant, that too within the warranty period, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which caused harassment to the complainant and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
10.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the invoice price of the laptop in question i.e. ₹49,000/- to the complainant, subject to return of the laptop in question by him.
11.        This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
12.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 16/09/2024 hg	(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA) MEMBER