Tripura

StateCommission

A/6/2016

Shri. Rahul Banik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mr. Bijan Saha

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/06/2016

 

 

1. Shri Rahul Banik,

S/o Shri Bijoy Banik,

Presently residing at the House of Biplab Datta,

Durga Chowmuhani, near ‘Nabodaya Club’,

P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.

 

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

 

 

                   Vs

 

 

1. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.,

(To be represented by its Managing Director),

Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A,

13/1A, Challaghatta Village,

Varthur Hubli, Domlur, Bangalore District,

Bangalore, Karnataka-560071.

 

2. Infosolution System,

(To be represented by its Proprietor),

T.G. Road, Krishnagar, Opposite to Ramnagar Road No.2,

Agartala-799001, West Tripura.

 

                                                            ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

 

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

 

For the Appellants             :         Mr. Bijan Saha, Adv., & Mr. Saptarshi Pal, Adv.

For the Respondent           :         Mr. Apu De, Adv. & Mr. Sukanta Paul, Adv.     

Date of Hearing       :         15.06.2016. 

Date of delivery of Judgment:       20.07.2016

 

J U D G M E N T

 

S. Baidya, J,

This appeal filed on 19.02.2016 by the appellant-complainant Sri Rahul Banik under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No.CC-22/2015 whereby the Ld. District Forum partly allowed the complaint petition filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act directing the opposite party no.2, Infosolution System to pay Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner (appellant) as compensation with a further direction to the opposite party no.2 to take step for repairing the laptop of the complainant within one month. By said judgment the o.p.no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. is also directed for repairing the said laptop without fail or replacing it, if it cannot be repaired. It is also directed by the said judgment that the o.p.no.2 is to take up the matter with Dell India Private Ltd. for repairing the laptop within one month with a further direction that in case the product is not repaired within time, then it is to be replaced by a new one by the o.p.nos.1 & 2 without fail.

2. The case of the appellant-complainant, as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant was/is a consumer of Dell India Private Ltd. and Infosolution System, the respondent nos.1 & 2 respectively. It is alleged that appellant purchased a laptop bearing Model No. Dell Inspiron 5520, Service Tag No.5SHKMV1 and Express Service Code No.12606480829, on payment of Rs.39,200/- only as consideration money on 10.05.2013 from the o.p.no.2 Infosolution System, the respondent no.2 herein and the warranty period for the said laptop was for one year and expired on 09.05.2014.
3. It is also alleged that after purchase the said laptop initially for one and half month was in proper functional condition, but during the existence of the warranty period various types of defect in the said laptop developed, sometimes after opening the laptop it did not respond and sometimes it was in hanging position.
4. It is also alleged that when the said laptop showed defect for the first time, the appellant-complainant made contact with the respondent no.2 and sought remedy in this regard, but in response the respondent no.2 informed the appellant that they have nothing to do and the appellant required to make contact with the respondent no.1. Thereafter, the appellant made contact with the respondent no.1 over telephone and he received some guidelines from the respondent no.1 over telephone and the appellant followed their guidelines.
5. It is also alleged that thereafter for few days the said laptop was in functional mode, but within a short period which was also before the expiry of the warranty period, the said laptop again became defective and for this the appellant made communication on many occasions with the respondent no.1 seeking remedy and at this, the respondent no.1 again instructed the appellant to operate the laptop as per their instruction, but the appellant got no fruitful result.
6. Thereafter, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondents vide notice dated 03.03.2014 and in response to the said legal notice, the respondent no.1 sent one representative who rectified the defect for time being and replaced the hard disk and operating system, but ultimately, after four/five days the said laptop again became defective and thereafter, the appellant made communication with the respondent no.1 over telephone and in reply they informed the appellant that the team which was entrusted to see such type of dispute, would contact with the appellant, but ultimately they did not communicate or provide any service to the appellant.
7. The appellant thereafter again sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 to the respondents describing all the defects of the said laptop and claimed replacement of the said laptop by giving another new laptop with fresh warranty period and also claimed financial losses suffered by him due to sell of the defective laptop by the respondent no.2 and defective service by the respondents nos.1 & 2 and in response to the said legal notice, the respondents initially assured the appellant that they would repair the said laptop and if not cured, it would be replaced by them and on that assurance the appellant waited for a considerable period, but the respondents failed to comply with their said assurance.
8. It is also alleged that the appellant on so many times tried to communicate with the respondent no.1 over telephone, but they did not receive the phone, if received, they did not reply properly and denied to provide service stating that the warranty period was lapsed and lastly on 27.01.2015 when the appellant made contact with the respondents, they straight way denied either to repair or to replace the said defective laptop.   
9. It is also alleged that the appellant is an advocate by profession and he requires to do so many important works in the said laptop, but due to sell of the defective laptop by the respondents, that appellant suffered undue harassment, physical and mental pain and agony as well as loss of his profession, reputation and as such, the respondents are liable to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs to the appellant for such deliberate laches, negligence, delay and deficiency in service on their part and as such, the appellant being the complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum.
10. It is also alleged that the respondents contested the claim of the complainant by filing separate written objections denying the allegations made by the complainant-appellant. It is alleged that the Ld. District Forum on hearing passed the impugned judgment and thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant as appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum failed to understand the facts of the complaint petition and claims of the complainant, that the Ld. Forum passed the impugned judgment without any reasoning, that the Ld. Forum did not consider the evidence on record and failed to evaluate the evidence placed by complainant before it, that the Ld. Forum ought to have considered that no warranty card was ever issued, despite selling of the goods by him, the respondent no.2 and as such, there was deficiency on the part of the respondent no.2, that the Ld. Forum ought to have considered that the respondents committed deficiency in service upon the appellant by reselling a second-hand defective laptop which was earlier sold out to one Rauf Rabia, that the Ld. Forum committed serious error by not holding that, not only the respondent no.2 was involved with the illegal trade practice, but the respondent no.1 also, that the Ld. Forum ought to have considered that the opposite parties, the respondents herein are very much liable to replace the said defective as well as second-hand laptop, that the Ld. Forum ought to have directed the respondents to replace the product with new authenticated ownership in the name of appellant along with a new warranty period of the same, that the Ld. Forum committed serious error by not taking into consideration the loss suffered by the complainant as mentioned in the complaint, that the Ld. Forum also committed error by not awarding huge litigation cost incurred by the appellant and hence, the instant appeal has been preferred praying for setting aside the impugned judgment and also passing a proper and justified judgment allowing the complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act before the Ld. Forum.     

 

Points for Consideration

11. The points for consideration are (i) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in passing the impugned judgment and (ii) whether the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons     

12. Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
13. As per case of the complainant, respondent herein, he purchased a laptop bearing Model No. Dell Inspiron 5520, Service Tag No.5SHKMV1 and Express Service Code No.12606480829 on 10.05.2013 from the o.p.no.2 Infosolution System, the respondent no.2 herein for an amount of Rs.39,200/- only which is admitted by the o.p.no.2.
14. But as per case of the o.p.no.1 Dell India Private Ltd., the respondent no.1 herein, the system bearing Service Tag No. 5SHKMV1, was purchased by one Rauf Rabia as per their record and as such, the o.p.no.1 challenged the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground that the complainant Rahul Banik is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. It transpires that neither the o.p.no.1 nor the o.p.no.2 adduced any oral evidence, although both of them filed separate written objection against the complaint petition. From the cases of the two opposite parties made out in their respective written objection, we find that the cases of both the opposite parties are different from each other, but in appeal, we find two Ld. Advocates are representing both the respondents jointly as if the cases of both the opposite parties, respondents herein are the same and identical. However, we find that as per case of the Dell India Private Ltd., the concerned laptop was purchased by one Rauf Rabia, and not the complainant. From the evidences and other materials, it is evident that Dell India Private Ltd. rendered online services to the concerned laptop as and when the complainant made a complaint and contact with the said respondent for repairing the defects. In this regard, on our query, the Ld. Counsels for the respondents submitted before us in course of hearing of the appeal that it might be that Rahul Banik (complainant) has been wrongly recorded as Rauf Rabia in the record of the Dell India Private Ltd. The Ld. Counsels for the respondents also submitted before us that the Dell India Private Ltd. provided online service to the laptop of the complainant as and when any complaint from the side of the complainant Rahul Banik concerning any trouble in the laptop was brought to the notice of the Company. The Ld. Counsels for the respondents also submitted that not only so, the Service Engineer of Dell India Private Ltd. visited twice the residence of Rahul Banik and replaced hard disk and operating system.  He also submitted that the Dell India Private Ltd. rendered such online service as also manual service to the laptop of the complainant accepting the complainant Rahul Banik as the real purchaser of the said laptop. Admittedly, the Dell India Private Ltd. miserably failed to produce any document in the Ld. Forum showing that the said laptop was really purchased by any Rauf Rabia as per their record and not Rahul Banik, the complainant-appellant herein.
16. Admittedly, the complainant has made out no case of purchasing any second-hand laptop from the o.p.no.2 in the complaint before the Ld. Forum. It is only in the memo of appeal that the complainant-appellant has made out a case that the o.p.no.2 Infosolution System sold him a second-hand laptop alleging that as per office record of the o.p.no.1 Dell India Private Ltd., the said laptop was sold to Rauf Rabia. It is also neither the case of the o.p.no.1 nor the case of o.p.no.2 that the said laptop was sold on 10.05.2013 as a second-hand laptop. So, having made out no case of second-hand laptop in the complaint, the complainant-appellant in appeal cannot make out a new case of selling a second-hand laptop. The appellant is legally debarred from making out such a new case in appeal having no whisper in the complaint in this regard. We, therefore, are not inclined to accept that the laptop of the complainant is second-hand one.
17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that after purchase of the said laptop for initial one and half month, it was in proper functional condition and during the existence of warranty period various types of defect in the said laptop developed. He also submitted that as per advice of the o.p.no.2, he made contact with the o.p.no.1 and at this, the respondent no.1 gave some guidelines to the complainant and following the said guidelines, the laptop of the complainant became in functional mode for a few days, but during the existence of the warranty period the laptop again became defective and at this, the o.p.no.1 rendered online services to the laptop of the complainant, but in spite of that, the laptop of the complainant did not become free of defect and as such, the complainant was compelled to sent a legal notice to the respondents asking for replacement of the laptop and in response to the said legal notice, the respondent no.1 sent one representative who for the time being rectified the defect and replaced the hard disk and operating system, but ultimately after 4/5 days said laptop again became defective. He also submitted that having no response from the o.p.no.1, in spite of communication, the complainant again sent a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 describing all defects of the said laptop claiming replacement of the laptop by a new one with fresh warranty period and also claiming the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to sell of the defective laptop by the respondent no.2 and also for defective service by the respondent nos. 1 & 2. He also submitted that the respondents initially assured that they would repair the said laptop and if not cured, it would be replaced by them and on that assurance, the appellant waited for a considerable period, but ultimately, the respondent no.1 denied to provide any service on the ground that the warranty period expired. He also submitted that accordingly, on 27.01.2015 when the appellant made contact with the respondents, they straight way denied either to repair or to replace the said defective laptop for which the complainant was compelled to lodge the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Ld. District Forum found the respondent-o.p.no.2 guilty of illegal trade practice for not giving any proper service to the complainant, although the o.p.no.2 sold the laptop to the complainant. He also submitted that the complainant himself as a practicing advocate for such defective laptop had to suffer a lot both financially and mentally also. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not award adequate compensation in favour of the complainant, but only awarded a meagre amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for illegal trade practice. He also submitted that the findings of the Ld. District Forum as recorded for awarding a meager amount of compensation is not proper and justified and therefore, being violative of natural justice, the impugned judgment should be modified by awarding an adequate compensation for deficiency in service on the part of both respondents.           
19. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per business practice of Dell India Private Ltd., any service required in connection with the sold laptop, the purchaser requires to make contact with the Company through Toll Free Number mentioned in the bill/challan showing the sale of laptop to the purchaser, herein the complainant. He also submitted that the o.p.no.2 is a mere stockist and not the selling agent of Dell India Private Ltd. and as such, the service, if any, required for the sold laptop, the matter should be brought to the notice of the Company for repairing/removing the defect of the laptop. He also submitted that the Dell India Private Ltd. as per the practice rendered online services as and when the matter was brought to the notice of the Company by the purchaser. He also submitted that even the Company replaced hard disk and operating system to remove the defect in the laptop of the complainant as the same was necessary to repair the said laptop and that replacement of hard disk and operating system was made during the warranty period by the Service Engineer of the Company visiting twice the residence of the complainant. He also submitted that the Dell India Private Ltd. is still ready to resolve the issue as per warranty policy, if the complainant so desires as customer satisfaction is an important requirement of the respondent which has been mentioned in para-8 and 10 of the written objection submitted by the o.p.no.1. He also submitted that practically, there occurred no deficiency in service from the side of the o.p.no.1 towards the repairing of the laptop of the complainant. He also submitted that the awarding of compensation of Rs.15,000/- against the o.p.no.2 by the Ld. Forum in the impugned judgment is not proper and as such, it is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the respondent no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. is still ready and willing to do the repairing work in the laptop of the complainant and if the defect is not cured, the Dell India Private Ltd. will take appropriate step to replace the said laptop by a new one as the customer satisfaction is an important factor to the respondent no.1.
20. The Ld. Counsels for the respondents also submitted that it is the plea of the complainant that the laptop of the complainant is suffering from manufacturing defect. He also submitted that the complainant could not produce any expert opinion for establishing that the laptop in question suffers from any manufacturing defect. He also submitted that mere plea, without any proof, does not establish that the laptop of the complainant is suffering from any manufacturing defect. He also submitted that as the manufacturing defect has not been proved by the complainant by adducing any expert opinion or by examining any expert in this regard, it cannot be held that the laptop sold to the complainant suffers from manufacturing defect. He also submitted that Ld. District Forum also did not accept the said plea of any manufacturing defect in the laptop of the complainant.
21. At the outset, it is found appropriate to mention that the respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging impugned judgment. It means that the respondents are agreeable, rather accepted the verdict of the Ld. District Forum given by the impugned judgment. That being the position, we are of the view that the submission of the Ld. Counsels for the respondents to set aside the order of compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant against the respondent no.2 by the impugned judgment is not tenable in the eye of law. So, the submission of the Ld. Counsels for the respondents made in this regard is not acceptable.  
22. Admittedly, neither the appellant nor the respondents produced any warranty card to see as to the terms and conditions prescribed for the warranty period of the product i.e. concerned laptop. So, in fact, we find nothing to presume the existence of any terms and conditions either for replacement of the laptop in question or for refund of the price of the laptop of the complainant. Admittedly, the warranty period was for one year beginning from 10.05.2013 to 09.05.2014. It is the plea of the complainant that he was not provided with any warranty card at the time of the purchase of the concerned laptop which is denied by the respondents. The complainant is not a mere lay man. He is a practicing Advocate. It is not believable that the complainant being an advocate purchased the concerned laptop without any warranty card. From that standpoint, it can be said without any hesitation that the plea of non-supply of warranty card to the complainant at the time of purchase of the laptop is far away from truth and therefore, such plea is not acceptable in the eye of law.
23. It is the specific case of the complainant-appellant that the laptop purchased by him from the respondent no.2 suffers from manufacturing defect from the very beginning which is denied by the respondents. As per case of the complainant, the trouble in his laptop arose after one and half months of the purchase of the laptop, but the complainant produced no documentary evidence for establishing that after one and half months of the purchase the trouble in the laptop was started. On the other hand, the o.p.no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. stated in their written objection that the respondent no.1 was contacted for the first time on 16^th October, 2013 complaining the shutting down of the laptop. The o.p.no.1 did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. But the onus lies upon the complainant to prove the date on which his laptop became defective by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is needless to say that the complainant miserably failed in this regard. Admittedly, the communication between the complainant and the o.p.no.1 was made over telephone and the service to the laptop of the complainant provided by the o.p.no.1 was made through online. The complainant could not produce any document before the Ld. District Forum regarding any sort of communication made between complainant and the o.p.no.1 concerning his laptop before October, 2013. In that circumstance, we have no alternative, but to believe and hold that actually the laptop of the complainant developed trouble not before the October, 2013. Going through the impugned judgment, we find that the Ld. District Forum also rightly accepted the same.
24. Admittedly, the plea that the laptop of the complainant suffers from manufacturing defect requires to be established by adducing cogent and material evidence by the complainant. That onus of proof cannot be shifted to the shoulder of the o.p.no.1. Be that as it may, it appears that the complainant used his laptop continuously up to October, 2013 after his purchase of the same on 10.05.2013 i.e. for five months. If any laptop remains in functional mode at least for five months, it cannot be said at a glance that the laptop suffers from manufacturing defect from its very inception. Admittedly, the warranty card has not been produced by either of the parties, but the o.p.no.1 in para-10 of its written objection narrated the terms and conditions of the warranty card. From the said para-10, it is evident that the user of any foreign parts in the laptop manufactured by Dell India Private Ltd. is not permissible. It also appears that any attempt by any person other than Dell personnel or any person authorized by Dell, to adjust, repair or support the products and problems caused by use of parts and components not supplied by Dell is not covered by warranty. After the filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum, the complainant could at ease to make an application before the Ld. Forum seeking an expert opinion for ascertaining that the laptop of the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect from the very beginning, but the complainant miserably failed to take any such step which was highly required for establishing the case of the complainant that the laptop purchased by him from the o.p.no.2 suffers from manufacturing defect. In fact, there is no iota of evidence for proving that the said laptop has been suffering from manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the o.p.no.1 gave instructions to the complainant through online to operate the said laptop. It is also admitted fact that following that instructions the complainant worked at least for few days with the help of his laptop. It is also admitted position that the o.p.no.1 rendered online services to the laptop for a number of times. It is also admitted fact that the Service Engineer of the o.p.no.1 visited the residence of the complainant for twice and removed the defect of the laptop by replacing the hard disk and operating system. It is also found that after such removal of defects, the complainant used his laptop for certain period. Had the laptop of the complainant been suffering from any manufacturing defect from its very inception, the complainant could not use his laptop even for a single day. In view of the above position, we are also in agreement with the findings of the Ld. District Forum that the laptop of the complainant did not suffer from any manufacturing defect.
25. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents referred to a case law reported in C.P.R.1-1993 (1) at page no.170, wherefrom we find that the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that the State Commission was unjustified in ordering appellant to refund the price of the vehicle. It also appears that in the said referred case, there was an allegation that a jeep purchased by the complainant was found having manufacturing defect of excessive engine oil consumption and the said engine was changed by the dealer. It also appears that the Hon’ble National Commission was of the view that the complainant was not justified in not taking delivery of the jeep. In the instant case, the laptop in question is in the custody of the complainant. The defects have been removed from time to time by the o.p. as and when reported. The Ld. District Forum did not pass any order directing either the o.p.no.1 or o.p.no.2 to refund the price of the laptop to the complainant, although the complainant-appellant in the complaint petition as well as in the memo of appeal has prayed for replacement of the defective laptop by a new laptop with new warranty period or return of the purchased amount with interest. When the defects in the laptop were removed from time to time by the o.p.no.1 and the said laptop became in functional mode after removal of the defect, there arises no question of refund of the purchased money. Following the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission mentioned earlier (supra), we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum was right in not entertaining the prayer of the complainant to return the purchased amount of the laptop to him.
26. The o.p.-respondent no.2 in their written objection has taken a plea that the o.p.no.2 is a mere stockist of Dell India Private Ltd. and not the seller or dealer of the o.p.no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. It transpires that admittedly, the complainant purchased the laptop from o.p.no.2, Infosolution System. The bill dated 10.05.2013 speaks that the laptop in question was purchased on that date by the complainant Rahul Banik and it was sold by M/s Infosolution System, the o.p.no.2. Nowhere in the bill it has been mentioned if the o.p.no.2 is a mere stockist and not the seller or dealer. The bill (Annexure-B) along with the challan (Annexure-A) have made it clear that the o.p.no.2 is a seller of the concerned laptop to the purchaser Rahul Banik (complainant). Going through the impugned judgment we also find that the Ld. District Forum treated the o.p.no.2 as a seller/dealer and not a mere stockist. So, the plea of the o.p.no.2 that the o.p.no.2 is a mere stockist is not acceptable. We are also of the view that the complainant-appellant is a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
27. As a seller, the o.p.no.2 is duty bound to provide proper service to the product sold to a purchaser like the complainant, if any defect cropped up in the product itself or in its operation. The o.p.no.2 avoided to provide service to the laptop of the complainant only stating that the Dell Company will provide necessary online service to the product, if any defect in the product is reported to it and in this regard, the o.p.no.2 tried to wash out its hand by stating that he recorded the Toll Free Number of the o.p.no.1 in the bill for getting online service from o.p.no.1, and o.p.no.2 has no other liability or responsibility to provide any sort of service to the product sold by it. But such an attempt on the part of a seller of a product is not permissible in the eye of law. A seller of a product is duty bound in law to provide proper service to the sold-product, if any defect in the product itself cropped up. In this regard, we find that the Ld. District Forum rightly held the o.p.no.2 deficient in service to the complainant concerning the defects in his laptop within and beyond the warranty period. We are also of the view that the Ld. District Forum rightly awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation against the o.p.no.2 which cannot be said to be an inadequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
28. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Ld. District Forum did not award adequate compensation to the complainant, although the complainant suffers a lot due to deficiency in service on the part of the     o.p.nos.1 & 2. It transpires that within warranty period the o.p.no.1 provided online as well as manual service to the laptop of the complainant as and when the defect is reported to o.p.no.1. From that standpoint, it is clear that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. So, it is found that the Ld. District Forum rightly awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation against the o.p.no.2 only for deficiency in service.
29. On the date of hearing the appeal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2, the o.p.nos.1 & 2 respectively filed an e-mail as per list, copy of which is received by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant with serious objection, stating that as per Court notice, Dell is supposed to repair the system to resolve the matter and in an event Dell is unable to fix the issue on the system, the o.p.no.1 will consider replacing option and if the complainant decides to provide them an opportunity to diagnose the issue on the system and resolve it accordingly. It also appears that the said e-mail was sent to the complainant Rahul Banik for his consent so that the o.p.no.1 can proceed accordingly as per direction of the Ld. Forum given in the impugned judgment. At the time of hearing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has raised a serious objection for sending such e-mail to him, but going through the said e-mail, we find that the o.p.no.1 is willing to proceed as per direction of the Ld. District Forum given in the impugned judgment, but it appears to us that the appellant did not make any response in answer to the said e-mail. However, such e-mail does not have any effect in deciding the instant appeal.
30. Going through the impugned judgment, we find that the Ld. District Forum rightly directed the o.p.no.2 to take up the matter with Dell India Private Ltd., the o.p.no.1 for repairing the laptop within one month. We also find that Ld. District Forum rightly directed the o.p.no.1, Dell India Private Ltd. to repair the laptop of the complainant within one month without fail or replace it if it cannot be repaired. We also find that the Ld. Forum rightly passed the order to the effect that in case, the product is not repaired within time, then it is to be replaced by a new one by the o.p.nos.1 & 2 without fail. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find nothing to interfere with the findings of the Ld. District Forum. That being the position, the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Appellate Authority and as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal accordingly, deserves to be dismissed.
31. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in case no.CC-22/2015 stands affirmed.
32. There is no order as to costs.           

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura