O R D E R
(Per Ms. Cynthia A. Colaco, Member)
The present complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant and in the same it is alleged as under:
…2/-
1.The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of Dell India Pvt. Ltd. and the Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorized dealer and service provider of the Opposite Party No. 1.
2.That the Complainant had purchased from the Opposite Party No. 2 on 26.02.2011, a Dell Inspiron 5030 ( Black Dual Core /Dos/2GB/250GB HDD; WIFI/BT/Camera ser Fax:- GGx23NI for the price of Rs. 25,400:00 and a warranty for a period of one year was issued with respect to the said computer.
3.That in the month of September 2011 the laptop showed functional errors such as USB Ports not supporting USB drives and consequently a complaint was lodged telephonically on 17.02.2012 to both the Opposite Parties. As no action was taken on the said complaints a legal notice was addressed on 02.04.2012 demanding replacement of the laptop subsequent to which the Opposite Parties sent their engineers to repair the same who visited the residence of the Complainant on 06.04.2012, 05.05.2012 and 19.05.2012, however the laptop could not be put in working condition and finally on 08.07.2012 the hard disk got damaged and thus the Complainant lost all the data which was stored in the said laptop.
4. The Complainant alleged that the said computer was having potential manufacturing defect and that the same was an unmarketable item.
5. The Complainant stated that he is within the warranty period and is entitled to the replacement of the said item or in the alternative to the refund of the total amount paid by the Complainant together with damages.
6. It is the case of the Complainant that the cause of action arose on 17.02.2012 and is still continuing and the Complainant has prayed that the laptop set be replaced along with damages of Rs. 20,000:00 or in the alternative he be paid Rs. 50,000:00 including the cost of laptop set and damages.
…3/-
7. The complaint was presented on 08.08.2012 and the same was admitted on 24.08.2012.
8. From the A/D Card in the file it is seen that the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party no. 2 were served. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed their written version wherein they have stated :
a) The warranty had expired on 07.05.2012 and the complaint was filed thereafter;
b) That the Complainant has not made out any case of deficiency of service;
- The Opposite Party claims that the Complainant complained for the first time on 17.02.2012 that the system freezes when used with a USB connect to the system and that the Opposite Party No. 1 tried to attend to these issues but all efforts to reach the customer failed;
- That on 06.04.2012 the complaint was attended to by the Engineer and appropriate trouble shooting steps were provided to the customer and the same have been resolved;
- that the Complainant had further on 12.04.2012 reported similar issue of USB port freezing during use and the Opposite Party No. 1 decided to procure the system to Bangalore Head Office for getting the system tested and on examining it was found that there was damage on the bottom base plastic of the said system and such fact was informed to the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 replaced the bottom base plastic as a one time exception. Further the Opposite Party No.1 stated that they checked the operating system and reinstalled the same and thereafter tested the same and found that there
…4/-
was no problem with the system and with the USB Port. The Opposite Party No.1 also informed the Complainant that they tried multiple USB Devices like USB drive, External hard drive and that the same worked without any issues. The system thereafter was sent to Goa to the Complainant.
- Thereafter the Complainant reported having problems with plastic alignment and USB port working intermittently. The Opposite Party No. 1 sent their onsite engineer and during the visit the Complainant informed that the issue reoccurs on the system when the system is connected to a modem using USB Cable to get connected to the internet.
- The engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that the features the Complainant was trying were not compatible with the said system due to compatibility issues and the engineer showed that the USB port was working fine with other devices and further informed the Complainant that the appropriate way to connect the system to internet is through the wireless card or net work port and in the event he wanted to connect the system using a USB cable the Complainant had to contact the modem manufacturer to get a compatible driver software compatible to the system. The Opposite Party No.1 also replaced the touchpad to the Complainant's satisfaction.
- They denied that the laptop had a potential manufacturing defect and they asserted that the system is working as designed.
- The Opposite Party No.1 denied that the Complainant was entitled to the replacement and stated that as per the warranty policy the Opposite Party No.1 had replaced the required parts.
…5/-
- It is denied that the Complainant suffered any loss and mental agony.
- That the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
9. The Complainant relied on the following documents which have been perused:
i) The bill dated 26.2.2011.
ii) Repair Order under No. 47952 dated 04.06.2012 from which it is seen that in the column ‘issue reported’ it is written:
“Verified the serial tag found
Issue with USB Port and ICD - also checked
Replace the LED cable
MGG and ODD updated
The SER tag RUN diagnostic - no errors found.
System checked working fine same verified by user.
The complainant signed the said work card”.
iii) Repair Order No. 21334 dated 05.05.2012 from which it is seen that:
“ Dummy Card installed. Checked the system palm rest lock found broken and System freezes when D Link Modem (GLB802C) (BSNL Broad Band ) Connected via USB. When on LAN system working fine. Ran Diagnostic. No error found and the same updated to Sundarajan of DELL and checked the system working fine and DELL will call back the customer on 07.05.2012.”
iv) Repair Order No. 47997 dated 19.05.2012
“Verify server tag found issue with palm rest damaged so check and replace the palm rest and checked by CX found no other problem reported by the customer. Ran Diagnostic . No errors. Found same update to DLS Mr. Sundarajan . He gave case D.”
v) Delivery challan dated 13.04.2012
…6/-
10. The Complainant placed on record the legal notice dated 02.04.2012 issued by advocate Vishwas G. Naik wherein the Complainant alleged that the laptop had a manufacturing defect and therefore not marketable and demanded that the same be repaired or replaced with a new laptop within fifteen days.
11. The Complainant produced a report from one Amar Naik which is dated 04.04.2014 wherein he states that he has checked the laptop on 5th March 2014 and that he observed that the same could not be opened due to the damage to the hard disk and that consequently he installed a new hard disk. He further stated that he noted the following defects:
The SATA port of the mother board was found faulty and had to be repaired/replaced and that after the repair and replacement of the mother board it was found that the said laptop was not working and consequently he changed the said hard disk.
He further states that the DVD drive was not working and had to be replaced with a new DVD drive and that the cost for replacing and repairing was Rs. 7,800.00
12. The issues that arise in the present case are as under:-
1.- Whether the Complainant proves that the laptop had a manufacturing defect and therefore not marketable?
2.- Whether the Complainant has proved that he is entitled to get the laptop replaced or repaired ?
3.- Whether the Complainant proves that he is entitled to be paid a sum of rupees fifty thousand as cost of the laptop and damages?
Since all the issues are interlinked with each other all the issues are taken up together.
…7/-
13. The said Amar Naik who is a Computer Engineer and proprietor of DeBug Computer Services has also filed his affidavit confirming the contents of the report.
From a mere perusal of the said report and affidavit of the Engineer , nowhere does the Engineer contend that the said laptop was having any manufacturing defect and that the examination of the laptop done by him established any manufacturing defect.
From the bill produced on record, which is dated 15-03-2014 it is noted that towards repair charges 1,600 was paid DVD writer was replaced costing 2000/- and software and windows reinstallation charges 500/- was charged. Totaling to 4100:00 .Besides a Hitachi 500 Gb SATA HDD (laptop) bill for Rs3,700:00 is also brought on record. Besides the receipt reads that Dell Inspiron 45030 repaired" and the purchase receipt dated 26-02-2011reads "Dell Inspiraon 5030 (Black Dual Core/DOS/@GB/250gb HDDwofo/BT/Camera".
14. From the documents issued by the Opposite Parties it is seen that during the period of warranty whatever complaints were there from the Complainant were attended to and none of them were relating to any manufacturing defect and as per the Opposite Party the same were due to the improper and inadequate USB Cable and USB port used by the Complainant which was not compatible with the laptop for which no fault would lie with the laptop.
15. The Opposite Party attended to the complaints made by the Complainant and from the documents produced it is seen that the Complainant was satisfied with the service rendered by the Opposite Party No.2 .
16. With respect to the expenses incurred as stated by the Engineer which are to the tune of rupees seven thousand eight hundred the same
have clearly been spent after the period of warranty cover had expired
…8/-
and was over which the Opposite Parties allege to have been in force till the 07.05.2012 and therefore the Complainant is not entitled to claim the same.
17. Similarly the allegation that the Complainant suffered from damages to the tune of rupees fifty thousand does not stand proved at all. The computer as per the report of the engineer is working till the date the report was prepared by the said Engineer and therefore the Complainant has not proved any deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
18. The Complainant has therefore failed to prove that the laptop had a manufacturing defect. The Complainant has further failed to prove that the Opposite Party No. 2 had failed to attend to the complaints about the laptop and has also failed to establish that he is entitled to the repair of the laptop or to the replacement of the laptop and similarly has failed to prove that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000:00 inclusive of the damages and price of the laptop.
19. In view of what is stated above the complaint stands dismissed.
O R D E R
Complaint dismissed.
(Shri Jayant S. Prabhu)
President
(Ms. Savita G. Kurtarker)
Member
(Ms. Cynthia A. Colaco)
Member
pf:
24/2
