DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024.
Filed on: 27/11/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No: 393/2020
COMPLAINANT
Sreenath K.S, S/o Shaji K.R., Kulathanal House, Kidangoor P.O., Vengoor, Aluva Taluk, Angamaly Village, Angamaly, Ernakulam District, Pin-683572.
(Rep. by Adv. Manu Krishnan G., Room No. B1, Ittoop Tower, Kombara Junction, Kochi 682018)
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
Dell International Services India Private Limited, Divyasree Greens, Koramangala Inner Ring Road, Domlur Post, Bangalore, Pin: 560071.
(Rep. by Adv. V. Jayakrishnan, Sooraj D. & Sruthy Xavier)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, involves a legal dispute between a lawyer (the complainants) and a product seller specializing in "Dell" brand laptops and electronic goods (the opposite party). The core of the complaint centers around the purchase of a Dell Latitude 3310 laptop, which was represented by the seller as being of superior quality, manufactured in Malaysia, and accompanied by an extended four-year warranty. The complainant, having trusted these representations, ordered the laptop for Rs.59,399.29, along with a laptop bag for Rs.2,213.75, totalling an expenditure of Rs.61,613.04 on October 14, 2020.
Upon receiving the laptop on November 2, 2020, the complainant discovered discrepancies including the laptop's actual manufacturing origin (China instead of Malaysia) and the absence of warranty documentation. Furthermore, the complainant encountered significant technical issues starting from the initial setup, which persisted despite multiple attempts to resolve them through customer support. This led to significant inconvenience and operational disruptions for the complainant's legal practice.
The situation escalated when repeated attempts to address these issues through customer support and direct communication with the seller were met with inadequate responses and no practical resolution. This prompted the complainant to send a legal notice to the opposite party on November 5, 2020, which also did not yield any corrective action from the seller.
The complaint highlights several key grievances against the opposite party, including:
- Misrepresentation of the product's manufacturing origin and quality.
- Failure to provide promised warranty support.
- Deficiency in service and customer support.
- The resulting operational and financial impact on the complainant's legal practice.
The complainant seeks redressal through the Consumer Protection Commission, requesting orders for the replacement of the defective laptop, refund of the purchase price, compensation for the inconveniences and losses suffered, provision of an interim replacement laptop, and the delivery of the missing warranty terms and conditions. The case underscores the complainant's reliance on the laptop for professional duties and the significant adverse effects experienced due to the product's deficiencies and the seller's failure to uphold their commitments and resolve the issues satisfactorily.
2) Notice
The Commission sent a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently appeared and submitted their version.
3) THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The O.P. asserts there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, stating they have always adhered to the warranty's terms and conditions. They argue that the complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed due to no deficiency of service or cause of action against them.
The O.P. denies all allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, claiming they have acted by the warranty terms and conditions. The O.P. challenges the jurisdiction of the forum, stating the complainant did not seek leave before filing and that the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction as the O.P.'s head office is located outside its territorial bounds. The O.P. emphasizes their compliance with warranty terms, stating that no hardware issues were found and that the complainant refused to follow provided solutions, including operating system reinstallation instructions.
The O.P. distinguishes between hardware (covered under warranty) and software issues, indicating that the reported problems were software-related, which the complainant failed to address through recommended solutions. It is explained that on-site services are provided only when hardware issues are diagnosed, which was not the case here. The O.P. mentions that they offered an on-site engineer visit as a one-time exception, which the complainant refused, and denies any wrongdoing in service provision.
The O.P. references legal precedents to argue that consumer courts are not intended for enriching consumers through unfounded complaints. The O.P. requests the complaint be dismissed, asserting no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and suggesting any demands by the complainant are unwarranted.
The O.P.'s submission is a comprehensive denial of all the complainant's claims, asserting that they have fulfilled their obligations under the warranty and accusing the complainant of failing to utilize the provided support services. The reply emphasizes adherence to warranty terms, the procedural and jurisdictional missteps of the complainant, and requests for dismissal of the complaint on these bases.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had not filed a proof affidavit, however, produced copies of seven documents before the commission.
- Bill of the Laptop dated 22.10.2020.
- Bill of the Laptop Bag dated 22.10.2020.
- Series of Emails between the Complainant and Dell.
- Screenshot of Message to Dell's Representative.
- Legal Notice Sent by the Complainant.
- Acknowledgment Card.
- Screenshots of Error Messages on the Laptop .
The opposite party had filed a proof affidavit and 2 documents.
- A copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty
- A copy of the reply to the legal notice dated 24.12.2020.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the matter before this commission, the dispute involves allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the complainants against Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. (the Opposite Party or O.P.).
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit and did not adhere to the required procedures outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to provide a proof affidavit. The complainant made appearances before the commission on December 14, 2021, March 11, 2022, and August 2, 2022. However, since June 17, 2022, there has been a consistent failure on the part of the complainant to submit a proof affidavit, despite the commission's directives to do so. Furthermore, the commission's office reached out to the complainant by telephone on November 15, 2023, to notify them about an upcoming hearing, which the complainant also missed. The pattern of sporadic attendance and the failure to provide the requisite proof affidavit compel the commission to move forward with the resolution of the complaint based on the available evidence. The complainant's repeated absences and failure to submit necessary proof affidavit indicate a disinterest in pursuing the case, despite being afforded multiple opportunities to do so.
The written arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party (O.P.), Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., in response to the complaint. The O.P. asserts a comprehensive denial of any deficiency in service or engagement in unfair trade practices, maintaining that their actions have always been in strict adherence to the warranty's terms and conditions. They argue for the dismissal of the complaint because there has been no failure on their part to fulfill their obligations towards the complainant.
The O.P. emphasizes that there have been diligent attempts to contact and resolve the complainant's issues post-receipt of the legal notice, including an offer for an onsite engineer visit for reinstallation of the operating system—a gesture that was declined by the complainant. This, according to the O.P., demonstrates their commitment to resolving the issue and contradicts claims of non-communication or neglect.
Significantly, the O.P. challenges the assertion that the laptop in question is inherently defective, contributing to operational disruptions and financial strain on the complainant. They argue that the laptop's issues were not related to hardware, which would be covered under the warranty, but were instead software issues that the complainant failed to address by refusing the provided support services. This refusal, they argue, indicates a lack of cooperation from the complainant's side rather than a deficiency of service from the O.P.
Moreover, the O.P. refutes allegations of misleading the complainant regarding the product's quality, warranty terms, and the manufacturing origin of the laptop. They assert that all representations made were accurate and that any misunderstanding or miscommunication does not constitute unfair trade practices or false advertising.
The arguments extend to deny any substantial impact on the complainant's professional activities, disputing claims of severe inconvenience, financial loss, or mental distress directly attributable to the laptop's performance. The O.P. maintains that they have fulfilled every obligation under the warranty terms, offering necessary support and solutions that were unjustly rejected by the complainant.
In conclusion, the O.P. requests the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the complainant's demands for compensation, replacement, or refund are unfounded and contradict the terms of the warranty policy. They contend that the complainant has not only failed to utilize the available remedies but has also sought to unjustly enrich themselves through unwarranted legal action against the O.P.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “
The Commission proceeded to analyze these issues in detail:
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
The complainants' intermittent appearances and failure to submit a proof affidavit, despite repeated directions, reflect a disinterest in diligently pursuing their complaint. This behaviour is pivotal in our analysis, as the willingness to adhere to procedural norms is indicative of the seriousness with which a party regards the redressal process.
Moreover, the commission notes the O.P.'s efforts to address the complainants' grievances, including the offer of an onsite engineer visit, which was declined by the complainants. This gesture, though not obligatory under the warranty terms, signifies an attempt beyond the norm to rectify the issues raised.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar te: 07/
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 393/2020
Order Date: 29/02/2024
