BEFORE THE BANGALORE URBAN III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE–560027.

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF MARCH 2021

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.06/2020

PRESENT:

Sri.K.S.Bilagi, B.com, M.A., LL.M.….  PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….     MEMBER

Sri. M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….       MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Mr.Praveen Kumar,

S/o B.M.Somashekharappa Gowda,

Aged about 37 Years,

Residing at No.1,

Door No.2, 1^st Floor, Kaveri Layout,

Near Green Basket Vegetable Shop,

(Rep. by Sri.Ramu S, Advocate)

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Dell International Services India Private Limited,

No.12/1, 12/2 A, 13/1A,

Divyashree Greens,

Koramangala Inner Ring Road,

Bangalore/Bengaluru Karnataka, 560071,

Represented by its Director.

(Represented by Sri.Panch Munesh B, Advocate)

2. Pai International Electronics Limited,

28/1A, 100 feet Road,

Represented by its Director.

3. Pai International Electronics Limited,

44/1A, 1019/A, 2^nd Main,

Service Road, Vijayanagar,

Represented by its Director.

(Opposite Party No.2 & 3 are represented by

Smt.Meena S and Smt.Suma N, Advocate)

Written by SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

******

//ORDER//

1. This complaint has been filed under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.34,990/- for selling a defective laptop jointly and severally and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for financial loss and unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is as under:-

The Complainant is a practicing Advocate at Bangalore.He has purchased a Dell laptop Black LAPDEL130, HSRSXN2, for a total consideration of Rs.34,990/- from 3^rd Opposite Party on 26.01.2019 for his professional work purposes.From the date of purchase, the said laptop was not working properly with a defect of software issues and hardware issues.The Laptop delete major files stored in it automatically.The said problem was informed to 3^rd Opposite Party and 1^st Opposite Party over telephone.But none of them solve the issues though warranty till May 2020.The Complainant sent several mails to all the Opposite Parties.But none of them cared for it.The Complainant finally had taken the said laptop with charger to 3^rd Opposite Party on 30.11.2019 with a request to exchange the same and to give a new laptop.The 3^rd Opposite Party have collected the same with a proper endorsement on the invoice to service or exchange with charger.The Complainant needs this laptop for every day to day work.The Opposite Parties made him to suffer with defective laptop.The Opposite Parties service is defective service and unfair trade practice.On 07.12.2019 Complainant sent a demand notice but neither Opposite Parties replied nor paid any compensation by replacing the laptop.But after receipt of notice, the Opposite Party’s started calling the Complainant and threatened to take away the laptop from the Opposite Parties custody or else the same will be sold away.Finally on 16.12.2019 Opposite Parties have conceded their product as defective had offered to refund Rs.29,741.5/- post 15% restocking fee.This itself clearly goes to show that, the Opposite Parties have sold a defective product, deficiency in service and shown their unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

3. Despite receipt of notice with copy of complaint, the Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission and Opposite Party No.1 has been placed ex-parte.  The Opposite Party No.2 & Opposite Party No.3 appeared but failed to file their version.  Hence, version of Opposite Party No.2 & Opposite Party No.3 taken as ‘nill’.

4. The Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents in support of his case which are marked as EX.P1 to P5.

5. Heard the arguments of the Complainant only.  No arguments advanced by Opposite Parties.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitle to the reliefs claimed in the complaint ?
3. What order ?

7. Our findings on the above points are:-

1. Point No.1       :- In the affirmative
2. Point No.2         :- Affirmative in part
3. Point No.3       :- As per final order

for the following;

:REASONS:

8. POINT NO.1:- Eventhough, the Opposite Party No.1 placed    ex-parte and Opposite Party No.2 & Opposite Party No.3 not filed version, it is the duty of this Commission to consider the case of the Complainant on merits.
9. The documents produced by the Complainant reveal that the Complainant had purchased a Dell Laptop Black LAPDEL 130, HSRSXN2, for a total consideration of Rs.34,990/- from 3^rd Opposite Party on 26.01.2019.  But from the date of purchase said laptop was not working properly with a defect of software issues and hardware issues.  The Complainant informed this problem to 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties.  But Opposite Parties neither resolved the issues nor issued reply to the Complainant.  So the Complainant taken the said laptop with charger to 3^rd Opposite Party on 30.11.2019.  The 3^rd Opposite Party have collected the laptop with proper endorsement on the Invoice. The Complainant send several mails to Opposite Parties.  But Opposite Parties did not respond.  On 07.12.2019 the Complainant sent a demand notice.  But neither Opposite Parties replied nor replaced the laptop or laptop’s amount.  On 16.12.2019 Opposite Parties have conceded their product as defective had offered to refund Rs.29,741.5/- post 15% restocking fee.  But till date neither refunded the amount nor replaced the laptop. Due to this, the Complainant suffered a lot.  To substantiate this case, the Complainant filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the averments of the Complaint.  The Complainant produced the documents which are marked as EX.P1 to P5, which clearly shows that Opposite Parties failed to provide good service to the Complainant.   Therefore, evidence clearly goes to show that the Opposite Parties agreed the defective product, but denied to give new laptop or laptops cost without valid reason.  If at all Opposite Parties render good service to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties would have filed their version and evidence. But Opposite Party No.1 failed to appear and Opposite Party No.2 & Opposite Party No.3 appeared and failed to file their version.  Thereby, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted all the allegations made against the Complainant.   In this context, it is relevant to refer the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2018 (1) CPR page No.325(NC) in Kotak Mahindra Limited old Prudential Life Insurance Limited V/s Dr.Nishi Gupta, wherein it is held that the non-filing of the written version amounts to admission of allegations made by the Complainant in the Consumer Complaint.  The oral and documentary evidence produced by the Complainant remained unchallenged.  Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Complainant.  Due to the deficient service of Opposite Parties, Complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Inspite of repeated requests, the Opposite Parties never bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant.  This clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence, point No.1 answered affirmative and infavour of the Complainant.

10. POINT No.2 & 3:- In view of the finding recorded on the point No.1 holding in affirmative, the next aspect is to be considered about the relief to which the Complainant is entitled.  The Complainant sought for refund of Rs.34,990/-.  The claim is fully justified.  So we deem fit and proper to award Rs.34,990/- with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is too high.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 & 2 in accordingly infavour of Complainant and proceed to pass the following final order;

The complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. 

The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.34,990/- and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. If Opposite Parties fail to pay this amount within 30 days, the Opposite Parties shall pay 12% interest p.a on Rs.34,990/- after expiry of 30 days till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the Complainant.

 (Dictated to the Steno, typed by her, transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by the open Forum on 6^th day of MARCH 2021)

    (L.Mamatha)              (M.B.Seena)                  (K.S.Bilagi)

       MEMBER                  MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Mr.Praveen Kumar, who being the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the complainant:

1. Invoice.
2. Warranty card.
3. Acknowledgement/receipt.
4. Legal notice.
5. Postal receipt/acknowledgement.
6. Email correspondence.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

   -NIL

List of documents filed by the Opposite party:

-Nil-

(L.Mamatha)            (M.B.Seena)               (K.S.Bilagi)

  MEMBER                MEMBER                 PRESIDENT