Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant purchased one laptop from the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Seller through e-bay site i.e. Opposite Party No.1 , vide order Id-44815843434 dated 27.02.2017. From the very beginning the said laptop had a problem i.e. it automatically restarted after shutting down and the same fact was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 through email. After that the Opposite Party No.2 sent window recovery pen drive to the complainant and as per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.2 through chat conversation the windows 10 was got reinstalled in the laptop, but the said problem is still persisting in the laptop. On 06.04.2017 at the request of the Opposite Party No.2 on eBay site the laptop was sent back to the Opposite Party No.2 for repair at the cost of the complainant on dated 07.04.2017 and the same was received back to the complainant after a few days with fresh installed windows 10. After a few days the laptop started giving the same problem and this fact was also brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, through email on 01.07.2017, but no reply was given by Opposite Party No.2. On 18.07.2017 while trying to check windows 10 installed in the laptop the complainant came to know that the windows installed on the laptop showed some error code that product key blocked. The complainant protested this facts on the website of ebay i.e. Opposite Party No.1 regarding deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.2. Legal notice to this effect was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but no reply was given. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
a) Opposite parties may be directed to refund the price of laptop i.e. Rs.28,999/-.
b) To pay an amount of Rs.1450/- as courier charges and Rs.15,000/- as legal expenses.
c) And any other relief which this Commission deem fit and proper be granted to complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Upon service of notice, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 & 2, hence Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objection therein inter alia that at the outset, each and every contention and allegation raised in the complaint is denied in its entirety unless specifically admitted herein. Further alleges that Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 are not the authorized partners of resellers of the Opposite Party No.3. The system bearing Service Tag DG17XB2 was originally sold in Canada. The said system is only entitled for sale and service in Canada and Opposite Party No.3 does not have any records or knowledge on how the said system was brought to India. The system has been sold in India unauthorizedly by way of parallel import and no warranty is accompanied with such unauthorized purchase of systems in India. Opposite Party No.3 is not obligated to provide any support services to the complainant. Even as per the invoice submitted by the complainant, the warranty on the said laptop is a ‘Seller Warranty’ and not a manufacturer warranty. Therefore, the complainant has wrongly arrayed the Opposite Party No.3 as a party to the present case. Opposite Party No.3 cannot be held liable for the unauthorized acts of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, who are not related to Opposite Party No.3 and are not the agents or authorized sellers of Opposite Party No.3. Further alleges that the original sale of the laptop bearing Service Tag #DG17XB2 by Dell was for limited/conditional sales and service in Canada and as such the said laptop does not qualify for any warranty or services. Therefore, no such liability can be fastened on the Opposite Party No.3. Further alleges that the said system is brought to India without the knowledge of Opposite Party No.3 and therefore Opposite Party No.3 is not liable to provide and kind of services on the said system. Therefore, it is considered best for the complainant to contact the reseller from whom the system was purchased for any type of technical or customer support. The warranty on the said system is void as no warranty as offered at the time of sale in Canada. Opposite Party No.3 mentioned the relevant terms of the warranty policy in para no.4 of the written reply. Further alleges that there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.3 has no knowledge of the sale between the dealer and reseller. The Opposite Party No.3 does have any obligation to provide any services to the complainant as the product has been brought into the country without any knowledge/approval of the Opposite Party No.3. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, the procedure adopted by Opposite Party No.3 is that such service tags are not entitled to any warranty extensions or upgrades. Also, the technical support agents of the Opposite Party No.3 are not supposed to position any warranty orders for such customers to receive support, therefore, such customers are politely referred back to the broker/seller for support. Further, in case the broker/reseller is calling on behalf of the customer, then the broker/reseller is informed about the contractual agreements between these partners and Opposite Party No.3. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.
5. We have gone through the documents placed on record. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one laptop from the Opposite Party No.2 through the site of Opposite Party No.1, vide order dated 27.02.2017. From the very beginning the said laptop had a problem i.e. it automatically restarted after shutting down and the same fact was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 through email. After that the Opposite Party No.2 sent window recovery pen drive to the complainant and as per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.2 through chat conversation the windows 10 was got reinstalled in the laptop, but the said problem is still persisting in the laptop. On 06.04.2017 at the request of the Opposite Party No.2 on eBay site the laptop was sent back to the Opposite Party No.2 for repair at the cost of the complainant on dated 07.04.2017 and the same was received back to the complainant after a few days with fresh installed windows 10. After a few days the laptop started giving the same problem and this fact was also brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, through email on 01.07.2017, but no reply was given by Opposite Party No.2. On 18.07.2017 while trying to check windows 10 installed in the laptop the complainant came to know that the windows installed on the laptop showed some error code that product key blocked. The complainant protested this facts on the website of ebay i.e. Opposite Party No.1 regarding deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.2. Legal notice to this effect was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but all in vain. To prove his case, complainant placed on record copy of bill/Sales Receipt Ex.C1, copies of emails Ex.C2, receipt of the Courier Ex.C3, copy of the message displayed on the window of the laptop in question is Ex.C4. On the other hand, as per the written version, main plea of Opposite Party No.3 is that they does not have any obligation to provide any services to the complainant as the product has been brought in to the country without any knowledge/approval of the Opposite Party No.3. The original sale of the laptop bearing Service Tag #DG17XB2 by Dell was for limited/conditional sales and service in Canada and as such the said laptop does not qualify for any warranty or services. However to prove the aforesaid fact, Opposite Party No.3 has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence.
6. From the above it is evident the laptop purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.2, through Opposite Party No.1 and manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 became defective. Despite repeated requests of complainant, Opposite Parties failed either to remove defect in the laptop in question or replace the same or refunded the amount of the same. We are of the view that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are liable for the sale of defective laptop. Since Opposite Party No.1 is a platform of selling goods from where the complainant had ported the laptop and Opposite Party No.2 is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/ produced by others. We also hold Opposite Party No.3 liable being manufacturer.
7. In view of above detailed discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant. Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.28,999/- i.e. price of the laptop in question. The compliance of the order be made by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 within 60 days of receipt of copy of this order. If the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the order, the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
8. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
