BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 418/2014 Filed on 20.10.2014

ORDER DATED: 16.08.2017

Complainant:

Niphin. M, Nimmy Dale, Tp. 6/12, Vadakkumbhagom, Kazhakuttam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 583.

                             (By Adv. S. Reghukumar)      

Opposite parties:

1. Dell India Pvt. Ltd., Registered office: Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A 13/1A, Koramangala Ring Road, Challaghatta, Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka-560 036.

       (By Adv. Joju Kynady & Nithya. S)

2. M.K. Solutions, T.C 12/1222(7), Vikasbhavan Road, Law College Junction, PMG, Thiruvananthapuram.

This case having been heard on 22.06.2017, the Forum on 16.08.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant’s case is that the complainant has purchased a Lap Top through online directly from the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 63,333/- on 03.09.2010.  The main component, the mother board of the Laptop became faulty in March 2014 and the complainant had consulted with 2^nd opposite party to repair the laptop.  After checking the same the 2^nd opposite party informed that the mother board has to be replaced and such parts will be provided by the 1^st opposite party directly and for that the 1^st opposite party has to be contacted through their toll free number.  Accordingly the 1^st opposite party was contacted through e-mail and filed a request to repair the laptop in April 2014.  Initially the 1^st opposite party told to pay Rs. 11,000/- so as to replace the motherboard and the complainant confirmed to pay the amount.  After that the 1^st opposite party had informed that it is not possible to repair the laptop as parts are not available because the 1^st opposite party company has stopped production of the said model laptop.  The failure to provide adequate spare parts to cure the defects constitutes unfair trade practice.  The laptop remains in a defective state and it cannot be used.  The opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the laptop to a working condition with guarantee or to return the original price of Rs. 63,333/- with interest. 

1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The complainant purchased the laptop for Rs. 63,333/- on 03.09.2010 and it is having one year warranty which stands expired on 02.09.2011.  In June 2014, the complainant contacted opposite party customer care for technical support.  On diagnosis it was found that the mother board was having problem and the complainant was informed that the same can be repaired only by paying Rs. 11,000/- and the complainant agreed to pay the said amount.  As the required parts were not available with the opposite party no payment was collected and the complainant was informed that the said repair could not be done.  It is further contended that the said laptop was having 1 year warranty and the opposite party had obligation only to repair the said laptop during the warranty period.  The complainant has never taken any extended warranty for the same and hence there is no obligation on the part of opposite party to repair the laptop.  The said laptop model is currently not in production and the required parts are also not in production.  Therefore the opposite party is not liable in any manner to compensate the complainant. 

The 2^nd opposite party in its version has stated that ML Solution is not involving in this case because it just redirected the complainant to contact dell toll free number and the complainant contacted dell toll free number, all conversation is done between dell and complainant. 

Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P2(b).

Issues:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- With regards to the first point, 1^st opposite party in his version admitted the purchase of the laptop for an amount of Rs. 63,333/- on 03.09.2010 and occurrence of fault in the motherboard in March 2014, demanding of repairing charge of Rs. 11,000/- and the acceptance of the complainant to pay the same.  The 1^st opposite party also contended that the said laptop is having only one year warranty and that the same is not currently available in the market and in spite of all the efforts the said out dated model was not available in the market and hence said repair could not be done.  According to the 1^st opposite party if the laptop was under warranty they should have repaired the laptop and the said laptop was not covered under warranty, there is no obligation on opposite party to repair the said laptop.  It is mandatory for the 1^st opposite party to provide spares and service for these models even if stopped its production.  The failure to provide spares, support and service for these models constitute unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is in a dominating position and is forcing the purchasers of the respective model laptop to discard the same as defective after warranty period and compelling them to purchase a new one is illegal and constitutes restrictive trade practice.  The warranty period in respect of an article sold and during the warranty period any defects occurred is to be rectified without charges.  Even if the warranty period is over it is the bounden duty of the concerned manufacturer/dealer who ever may be to repair the article against charges.  Moreover it is the duty of the manufacturer to make available the spare parts of a product in the market.  It is to be noted that a product is not sold to be used only up to the warranty period and throw away the same after the warranty period and purchase a new one in its place.  So it can be safely conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which the complainant is to be compensated.  He is eligible to get back the purchase price of the laptop i.e; Rs. 63,333/-.  Since the purpose for which the laptop was purchased was not served, complainant is eligible for compensation which we fix as Rs. 5,000/-.  No order on costs.

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 63,333/- to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount will attract interest at the rate of 12% till the date of realization from the date of default.  No order on cost.      

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of August 2017.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 418/2014

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Niphin. M

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of tax invoice

P2(a) - Copy of mail dated 16.07.2014

P2(b) -  Copy of mail dated 30.05.2014

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb