Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/870/2017

Mrs. Balwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Harmanjit Singh Jugait

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/870/2017
Date of Institution	:	19/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	23/01/2019

 

Mrs. Balwinder Kaur wife of S. Navdeep Singh, resident of House No.1286, Street-3, Block-H, Phase 3B2, Sector 60, SAS Nagar.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.     Dell International Services India Private Limited, Khasra No.70/5, Village Ghera, Delhi, New Delhi – 110081, through its General Manager.

 

2.     Rashi Peripherals Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor Ariisto House, JN of Telli Galli and N.S. Phadke Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400069, through its General Manager.

 

3.     Simit Technologies, SCO 16-17, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh – 160020, through its Proprietor.

 

4.     Bajaj Finance Limited, 5^th Floor, Bajaj Finserv Office, Off Pune – Ahmednagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra, through its General Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                      

PRESENT	:	Sh. A.P.S. Sekhon, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Varun Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.4.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased one Dell Inspiron 7567 Laptop from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.89,000/- vide invoice dated 15.06.2017. On having encountered with certain problems, the said Laptop was replaced by Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 17.07.2017 in the name of Harmanjot Singh Jhajj (son of the Complainant). Even the replaced laptop did not perform well and on account of problems therein, the same was replaced for the second time vide invoice dated 04.08.2017.  It has been asserted that the cost of the Laptop had been increasing and decreasing with successive invoices. It was originally billed for Rs.89,000/-, the replaced Laptop’s bill stated it to be worth Rs.96,271.90/- and finally, the second replacement was worth Rs.81,137.27/-. It has been alleged that still the said Laptop is not working. A legal notice dated 7.11.2017 was also got served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that honouring its warranty obligations, replacement was provided by the answering Opposite Party from its own and not from any of its Seller/Dealer. The price would always depend upon the configuration of the Laptop chosen by the customer. The Laptops replaced were as per the confirmation provided by the Complainant to the configurations. As far as malfunctioning is concerned, the same is a figment of imagination of the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party repeatedly approached the Complainant to visit the Service Centre so that the issue, if any, can be looked into. However, the Complainant on one pretext or the other did not visit the Service Centre for the expert to examine the Laptop.  In the absence of any diagnosis of the alleged defect, if any, the answering Opposite Party cannot be held liable for any default or lapse. It is the conduct of the Complainant which is doubtful. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
4.         Opposite Party No.2 contested the complaint and filed its reply/version, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the answering Opposite Party neither sold anything to the Complainant nor received any consideration qua the sold product. It has been denied that answering Opposite Party has billed invoice in favour of Harmanjot Singh Jhajj. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Opposite Party No.4 filed its separate written statement, inter alia, pleading that it has only financed the Laptop and no relief has been claimed by the Complainant against it. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6.         The Complainant also filed separate replications to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.
7.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
8.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
9.         In the present Complaint, it has been alleged by the Complainant that despite spending a hefty amount on the purchase of a laptop the same is not in working condition even after replacement of the same twice by the Opposite Parties. Hence, is the present Consumer Complaint. 
10.         The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) is that it was the duty of the Complainant to visit the Service Centre, so that the issue, if any, could be looked into aptly by the Service Center. Hence, it cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service.
11.         Further, Opposite Party No.4 has contended that the Complainant has sought no relief qua it as it only financed the subject laptop and no other service in the form of sale or after sale service was to be provided by it. Hence, it has sought dismissal of the Complaint against it. 
12.         The factum of the replacement of the laptop in question twice by the Opposite Parties has not been disputed before us at all. Perusal of the bill shows the purchase of the product in question was on 15.06.2017, which was subsequently replaced in toto by the Opposite Parties on 17.07.2017 and 04.08.2017 on two occasions, meaning thereby the brand new product could not work even for one month properly. It seems that the Complainant bought a problem for her as she had to time and again approach the Opposite Parties for redressal of her grievance as the subject laptop was not working properly.
13.         As far as the contention raised by Opposite Party No.1 that it was for the Complainant to approach the Service Centre is concerned, it is out of our understanding that a person who buys the product trusting in the brand why need to visit Service Center time and time despite the fact that the same was replaced twice. All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that the Opposite Parties sold a sub-standard product and finding themselves faulty of the same, they kept on replacing the same, and it is not a charity by them. Most importantly despite second time replacement of the laptop, once again same problem was certainly reported to Opposite Parties for which Opposite Parties are admitting that the Complainant chose not to appear before them. We feel that due to the sale of the sub-standard product, multiple replacement of the same, non-providing proper after sale service to the Complainant proves deficiency in service and indulgence of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant and forced her to get indulged in the present unwarranted, uncalled for litigation.
14.         No relief has been claimed by the Complainant against Opposite Party No.4 who has only financed the laptop in question. The Opposite Party No.4 being financier, to our mind, is not at all responsible or liable for any malfunctioning of the laptop. Hence, the present Consumer Complaint is dismissed qua Opposite Party No.4.
15.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.89,000/- being the invoice price of the laptop in question to the Complainant;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing mental agony & harassment to her;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

16.         This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17.         The Complainant shall return the defective laptop in question, to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, after the compliance of the order.
18.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/01/2019	[Dr.S.K. Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”