Orissa

Cuttak

CC/114/2022

Kanhaiya Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A Meheta & associates

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.114/2022

 

Kanhaiya Agarwal,

S/O:Ramsaran Agarwal,

R/O:Binod Bihari Lane,P.S:Lalbag,

Dist:Cuttack.                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.,

Divya Shree Greens, Ground Floor,

                   S No 12/1,12/2A,13/1A ,VarthurHobli

Bangalore South-560071.                                                                              ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:       Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

                       Date of filing:     10.06.2022

       Date of Order:    02.02.2023

 

       For the complainant:           Mr. Ayushi Mehta,Adv. & Associates.

       For the O.P.               :           Mr. R.L.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant is a partner of Partnership firm with name and style M/s. Shankar Distributors mainly dealing with distribution of apparel and accessories. The complainant had purchased on 7.9.2016 one new XPS13 Ultrabook (Service Tag No. CZWWKC2 & Express Service Code:28292971250).  Subsequently on 27.9.2017 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.12,999/- to the O.P for two-year extension of warranty.  Later, the complainant was made to understand that the consideration money for the said warranty was of Rs.22,999/- but it was misquoted earlier.  Thus, the warranty was never extended for the said product nor the said money was refunded back to the complainant.  Hence, by filing this case, the complainant seeks refund of his money already paid by him to the O.P towards the extension of warranty for two years to the tune of Rs.12,999/-alongwith compound interest thereon @ 12% till the amount is quantified together with a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the financial loss as incurred by him.

          In order to prove his case the complainant has filed copies of several documents together with his complaint petition.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he admits about the complainant to have purchased a Laptop of Dell XPS13, bearing Service Tag No.CZWWKC2 which had warranty upto 23.10.2017.  In the month of September,2017, the complainant had contacted the Warranty & Sales Team of the O.P in order to avail the extended warranty system for his laptop.  There were scheme for 2 year and 3 year premium warranty extension.  The Sales representative Mr. Subin Kumar of the O.P made a bonafide error by mentioning that the price

of the two year premium warranty extension to be of Rs.12,999/- instead of Rs.22,999/-.  Before the O.P could apprise the complainant about such wrong quoting by his representative Mr. Subin Kumar, the complainant had already transferred the money of Rs.12,999/-to the account of the O.P seeking the two years extension of warranty for his Laptop.  Subsequently, the representative of the OP had requested for the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- in order to enable the extension of warranty but the complainant had refused for the same.  The complainant was also apprised in the alternative that the amount so collected from him would be refunded to the complainant if the bank account details of the complainant would be furnished vide e.mail dt.27..7.2022.  The O.P has relied upon a decision in the case of GM Gupta Vrs. Colson Bath and Spa Pvt. Ltd. and others wherein the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in F.A.No.523/2017 has observed that the demand of the complainant for damages are liable to be rejected.  The O.P has also relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Administrator HUDA and Ors. Vrs. Shankutala Devi (2017) 2 SCC 301.  As such, it is the plea of the O.P that there was no deficiency in service on his part nor had he practised unfair trade for which he has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost. 

          He has filed copy of the mail addressed to the complainant dt.27.7.22 in order to prove his stand.

3.    Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P  and if the O.P  has practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

As it appears from the case in hand, the complainant had purchased a Dell Laptop on 7.9.2016 from the O.P which is not disputed.  It is also not in dispute that intending to have a two year further warranty extension on the said Laptop the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.12,999/- to the O.P.  It is also not in dispute that subsequently the complainant was made to learn that the actual price of the said warranty extension was of Rs.22,999/-.  In this context, it is the plea of the O.P that his representative Mr. Subin Kumar had bonafidely misquoted the warranty extension tariff to be of Rs.12,999/- instead of actual price of Rs.22,999/-and that before the O.P could apprise the complainant about actual price of the said warranty extension, the complainant had made the payment for the warranty extension.  The O.P has pleaded to have asked for the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the extended warranty price from the complainant through his agent but the complainant had refused for the same.  But this version of the O.P lacks any cogent evidence as no such documentary proof has been filed in that regard. On perusal of Annexure-3 as attached to the complaint petition, which is the copy of the mail sent by the complainant to the O.P dt.21.11.20 that he had already send the money of Rs.12,999/- to the O.P for warranty extension for two years on his Laptop on 27.9.2017.  The O.P had sent mail to the complainant on 7.6.2022 being unaware of such payment as made by the complainant to him.  Thus, this Commission comes to know about the immediate payment as made by the complainant to the O.P towards two years extension of warranty for the purchased Dell Laptop on 27.9.2017 after being told by Mr. Subin Kumar, the agent of the O.P.  The O.P had made no immediate response to the complainant but had rather slept over the matter till the legal notice of the complainant could reach to him and after that only he had thought about to send a mail to the complainant on 27.7.2022 communicating him and offering him thereby to return the money as paid by him towards the extended warranty.  This callousness/negligence on the part of the O.P tilts our eye brows.  This Commission therefore comes to the conclusion that indeed the O.P was deficient in his service and thereby had practised unfair trade by receiving the money of the complainant to the tune of Rs.12,999/- with effect from 27.9.2017 and without communicating him about the bonafide mistake of his representative if any.  The O.P has also not taken any immediate step to return back the said  money of Rs.12,999/-as received from the complainant.

The decisions as relied upon by the O.P widely differs from the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand and as it is noticed that it is the O.P who had tried to play ‘hide n seek’ by swindling the money of the complainant and sitting over the same in a negligent manner without making any prompt response for its immediate refund and had only done so in order to safeguard his skin after getting the legal notice from the complainant.  The plea taken by the O.P that the complainant had refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- for the extended warranty for two years also lacks proof and is thus only a vague effort to hide his own mistake.  Thus, the decisions as relied upon are of no use for the O.P here in this case and this issue thus goes in favour of the complainant and against the O.P.

 

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

Case is decreed on contest against the O.P and the O.P is thus directed to refund the money as received by him from the complainant to the tune of Rs.12,999/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 27.9.2017 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the unnecessary mental agony and harassment as caused by him to the complainant and also to be compensate the financial loss of the complainant amounting to Rs.30,000/- by paying him the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 2^nd  day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                      Member