CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.197/2018
RAVINDER YADAV
S/o SHRI SUNDER LAL,
H.NO. 12, WEST KRISHANA VIHAR,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- DELL AUTHORISED SERVICE CENTRE,
UPPER GROUND FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019
THROUGH ITS MANAGER.
- DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
VIPUL TECH. SQUARE, SECTOR-43
NEAR GOLF COURSE, GURUGRAM,
-
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
- DELL SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LIMITED,
124, INDIA, CONNAUGHT LN, JANPATH,
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001
THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR……..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-10/09/2018
Date of Order- 10/08/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs. 1,00,000/- as consolidated damages on the account of mental agony harassment, replacing the
laptop with the new one of this same specification and cost of litigation.
It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a Dell Inspiron laptop for Rs.52,300/- on 16.12.2015 for personal use and for teaching purpose. It is stated that the laptop was in warranty for 2 years, the copy of the invoice is attached as Annexure 1. It is stated that though the laptop had good configuration but it was very slow in performance and hung frequently. Complainant filed a complaint vide complaint no. 933527456 on 05.08.2016 and the complainant was advised to follow on YouTube for online video support but it did not resolve the problem. Another complaint was made on 23.06.2017 vide complaint no. 933527456, the same is attached as Annexure 3. The OP made some changes in the settings and check BiOS of the system but hardware was found working properly and no error was found. It is further stated that despite complaints, the same problem existed in the system. Another complaint was made on 26.06.2017 vide complaint no.950029831. This time, the entire system was formatted but the problem did not resolve.
It is further stated that since the complainant was having regular problem in the system, he contacted the computer teacher in his college and other Dell stores in Delhi, Haryana and engineers in open market. It was found out that there was no error except in battery but it is stated by the complainant the battery was normal and had a backup of 3 to 4 hours. The complainant was advised to format the whole system and remove all the software and files. It could not bring any change in the performance of the system even after formatting. Therefore, complainant again contacted OP on 16.08.2018 and he was asked to pay Rs.1,404/- for service check. On 22.08.2018 complainant again approached the authorised service centre of OP and 3 errors were found ‘touchpad not working’, ‘freezing’, ‘battery life error’. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.999/- for service charge and the same is annexed as Annexure 6. Thereafter, he kept contacting the customer care centre but in vain. On 27.08.2018 he got a call from the service centre and he was told that there was no fault found in the system and the system is still being observed. The complainant then collected his system but there was no improvement in his system which was still hanging/slow as it was earlier.
Reply has been filed by the OP-1 i.e. Dell International Services is the manufacturer which has authorised service centre, OP-2. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the OP. The laptop of the complainant is
out of warranty and the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation. It is further stated that the complainant has himself admitted that there is no hardware issue with the laptop therefore, there is no cause of action against the OPs.
It is stated by the OP that the standard warranty provided by them is a hardware warranty and does not cover software issues. The laptop was under 2 year Standard Hardware warranty till December 2017, which is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. The terms and conditions of the warranty are annexed as Annexure B with the reply. It is submitted by the OP that the computer slows down over the time depending upon the usage and availability of space in the hard drive and the same is not due to any fault or issue with respect to the hardware of the laptop and such issues are entirely beyond the warranty provided by OP. The warranty in the present case expired in December 2017, and therefore the OP is under no obligation towards the complainant. The OP have quoted the case ‘G.N.Gupta vs Colson Bath and Spa Private Limited’ SCDRC, Delhi FA 5223/2017 and stated that the Consumer Courts are not meant to enrich the consumers as that is against the letter and spirit of the Act’.
It is further stated that whenever the laptop of the complainant faced any problem the same was tried to be resolved by giving due service. It is reiterated that there were no hardware issues found with the laptop. It is stated by the OP that no hardware issues of any nature were found with the laptop after performing diagnostic test and after updating the software, the laptop was handed over to the complainant in proper working condition. It is also stated that OPs have made their best efforts to resolve the issues of the complainant and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is also stated that as per the complainant’s own admission, the system was checked by a third party vendor and they have also concluded that there was no issue with the system. The OP has further denied that there were any issues with the touchpad/battery/freezing. The OP has also denied that the system was freezing or working slow and has stated that whenever an issue was reported by the complainant, the OP has always checked the system and provided the best possible service in accordance with the policy of the complaint and in this regard they have quoted the judgement of ‘Shiv Prasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machinery Company I (2006) CPJ 92 NC no replacement can be ordered when an equipment or machinery can be repaired’. The OP further denied that there was any defect in the beginning or that have misguided the complainant in the name of system setting change and software update. However, as a goodwill gesture, the OP has offered provided support services to the complainant on a chargeable basis as the laptop of the complainant is out of warranty. It is also stated that OP-3 ought to be deleted from the array of parties and no service can be affected on a party which is non-est.
In its rejoinder, the complainant has stated that the contents of job sheets dated 22.08.2018 are self-explanatory and that the OP had returned the system without doing anything/removing any fault. It is further stated by the complainant that the system was purchased on 16.12.2015 and was under warranty for two years but the OPs did not provide free services/replacement neither in warranty period nor after paying service charge after the warranty period. It is further stated that videos of the system hanging, performing slow, freezing have been sent to the OP on 6th September 2018 therefore, there is manufacturing defect in the system. It is further stated that though the OP has formatted the system many times since 16.12.2015 but it has not made any change to the system which indicates that there is some manufacturing defect. The complainant has reiterated that OPs have failed to provide service during warranty period and even after the warranty period after charging service charge and that there is a manufacturing fault in his laptop which requires the replacement.
This Commission has gone through the entire material on record i.e rejoinder, evidence affidavits for both the parties as well as written submissions. It is recorded in one of the orders passed by this Commission dated 01.02.2022 where in it was ordered that a physical examination of the laptop be done at an authorised centre of the OP and a report thereafter was filed was to be filed. The complainant produced the laptop in one of the service stations of the OP and a report was given by the OP stating that though the system is powering on however there is a issue with battery(battery health 24 percentage) and LCD (vertical line on LCD on screen) with the system. The cost of the estimate for repair was also provided thereafter on the same day. The complainant has reported that the laptop was freezing and has annexed screenshots of the same.
The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the laptop, from the material on record it is apparent that there is some defect in the laptop. It is also seen from the record that the complainant from the very beginning i.e. after 8 months of the purchase of the laptop has been complaining regarding the freezing/hanging of the laptop. Though, the OP has provided service to the complainant on some occasions yet it could not resolve the problem pertaining to the said laptop of the complainant. The OP cannot wash off his hands by stating that the warranty only pertains to the hardware of the system, therefore this Commission is of the view that the complainant had to undergo trouble in using the said laptop after sometime of it’s purchase. The OP is hereby directed to refund Rs. 35,000/- towards the cost of the laptop. This amount is calculated from Rs. 52,300/- (cost of laptop) after deducting the depreciation of the laptop i.e. usage for 8 months when the first complaint was made. Further, the OP is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment caused to the complainant.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
