| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.39 of 09-02-2022 Decided on : 28-02-2024 Karmanveer Singh Dhillon S/o Mandeep Singh Dhillon R/o #20757-A, Street No.25-A, Ajit Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Dell International Services India Private Limited, Divyashree Greens, Ground Floor, Sys Nos.12/1, 12/2A and 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengluru-560071, through its CMD/MD/President/Chairman/GM. MS Solutions, 4910, Post Office Bazaar, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh.Priti Malhotra, President Smt.Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.Ashok Gupta, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Vikas Kumar, for OP No.1 Sh.Naveen Goyal, for OP No.2. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Karmanveer Singh Dhillon (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Dell International Services India Private Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Dell laptop having model No.G15-5510 for Rs.68000/- vide invoice No.2021-22/S-434 from opposite party No.2 on 1.10.2021. Opposite party No.2 also charged Rs.7500/- for insurance of laptop for any type of defect and claim ,but he did not issued the receipt in this regard. This amount was given for extended warranty for all types of claims and accidental damages. It is alleged that the complainant started working on laptop. It malfunctioned on 3.10.2021. He complainant wrote e-mail. Since its purchase, the laptop was showing blue screen error. He wrote many e-mails to opposite party No.1 and in reply, opposite party No.1 wrote that it had identified hardware issue in laptop. The employees of opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant and after checking the laptop told that there is manufacturing defect that can not be removed and only solution is to replace the laptop with new one. They informed opposite party No.1 regarding manufacturing defect and further told the complainant to wait for the response of replacing the new laptop in place of old one, but till date opposite parties are neither responding nor replacing the laptop and they totally refused to replace the laptop. It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 sold a defective laptop to the complainant. The complainant also suffered loss of academics as the viva was conducted online and he was not able to give the Viva Voce due to defect in the laptop and he also wrote whatsapp messages to his teacher for non functioning of laptop. The complainant contacted opposite parties to replace the laptop or to refund its value and value of insurance, but all in vain. The laptop is non-functional since its purchase. Opposite party No.1 also failed to resolve the issue on its end. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the laptop or to refund Rs.68,000/- and Rs.7500/- that was given to opposite party No.2 for insurance of laptop and Rs.1 lakh as compensation and other alternative relief or additional charges. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant approached its social support and reported wireless issue and alienware command center issue that was diagnosed by the Dell Technical Team and found that the drivers were required to be update that the complainant had not done. Accordingly, Dell Technical Team assisted the complainant to update the drivers and issue was resolved after updating drivers. The complainant reported Bluescreen error and accordingly, Dell Technical support team performed the appropriate troubleshooting including reinstalling Windows 10 Operating System. The issue was unresolved. Therefore, SSD, Memory and Motherboard were replaced under warranty and issues were resolved. The contents with regard to manufacturing defect and replacement are vehemently denied. It is further pleaded that the complainant is trying to make undue gains by making vague and baseless averments. Opposite party No.1 has honoured its warranty obligation and would always do. After the service, no other issue was ever reported to opposite party No.1. The issue of replacement does not arise as opposite party No.1 has honoured its warranty obligation and laptop is in perfect working condition. It is further pleaded that no cause-of-action has arisen for the complainant to file the complaint. It is an abuse of process of law. The complainant is attempting to make undue gains by filing this frivolous and baseless complaint. There is no deficiency in service whatsoever at the end of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has raised the legal objection that the complainant has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file the complaint. The complainant by his own act and conduct is estopped from filing of this complaint. He concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and he has not approached with clean hands to seek the relief. As such, he is not entitled for any relief. He is not 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. The complaint is false one and it has been filed just to cause harassment and humiliation to opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and complaint against him has been unnecessarily filed. Opposite party No.2 is only the sales points of laptops of various companies and the guarantee or warranty, if any, is given by the manufacturer of the product. As such, this complaint against the opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed. The laptop was opened in a sealed pack and in the presence of the complainant and same was put in the working condition and complainant was fully satisfied with its functioning and performance. It is denied that there is manufacturing defect in the laptop and opposite party No.2 has sold the defective piece to the complainant. The complaint is also bad for non-joinder of service centre of the manufacturer of the laptop and insurance company. On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit, (Ex.C-1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C15). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Tripathi dated 7.7.2023, (Ex.OP1/1). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitin Singla dated 5.7.2023, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one Dell laptop for Rs.68000/- vide invoice dated 1.10.2021. Invoice, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. The complainant has produced e-mails, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C13) and Wts ups conversations, (Ex.C14 and Ex.C15), which prove that he was facing the problems in the laptop and issues in the laptop were not resolved by opposite parties since long. From the perusal of record as well as correspondence exchange between the parties reveals that the problem/defect in the laptop in quesiton persisted even after the replacement of the numerous parts including the motherboard of the laptop, which technically is heart and sould of the product in question. At the time of arguments, counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has lost faith in the company, as such, he wants refund of product in question and he does not want replacement of the product in question. Moreover the complainant has purchased the laptop in question on 1.10.2021 and as per complainant, defect in the laptop was occurred on 3.10.2021 i.e. within short span of time and number of partes including motherboard got replaced and the problem persist despite that, which proves that there is some manufacturing defect in the laptop. As the complainant has lost his faith with the product in question as well as he is not satisfied with the services provided by opposite parties, thus, his claim for the refund of the amount incurred for the purchase of the laptop is payable. Moreover there is no document on record to prove that Rs.7500/- was given on account of insurance of the laptop. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to refund for this insurance amount of Rs.7500/-. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.68,000/- as per tax invoice, (Ex.C2) to the complainant and at the same time, the complainant will handover the laptop in question to opposite parties. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 28-02-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
