BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.76/17.
Date of instt.: 16.03.2017.
Date of Decision:27.11.2017.
Nitin Chaudhary s/o Shri Rakesh Chaudhary, r/o H.No.601/8, Chaudhary Mohalla, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Gopal Laptop Gallery, Shop No.1, New Koel Shopping Complex, SBI Road, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Kaithal.
- Dell Intl. Services India Pvt. Ltd., Divyashree Green Koramangala Inner Ring Road Domlur Post, Bangalore-5600071 (importer of Laptop of Dell Company)
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the Op No.1.
Shri Jarnail Singh, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one Laptop make Dell 3558 5th GEN 13 4GH 1TB Service Tag-7QN1C82 Express Service Code 16848290594 in the sum of Rs.30,800/- vide Invoice No.545 dt. 02.5.2016 from Op No.1 with all type of guarantee/ warrantee for one year including the guarantee/ warrantee in manufacturing fault. It is alleged that from the very beginning of purchase of said Laptop, its battery is not properly charging as the battery backup is only for half an hour and the said Laptop used to become out of order automatically while working. It is further alleged that he approached the Op No.1 many times to repair the said Laptop, but all in vain. It is further argued that this way, the Ops supplied the defective Laptop, which is great deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; that the complainant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has violated the conditions of the software warranty on the system by installing 3rd party Microsoft Windows operating system on the laptop not supplied by Op No.2 and was unauthorized copy; that the first part of the service description at Sr. No.19 provided limitation to service rules, which clearly rules out repair/service or software update by unauthorized agency; that the second party of service descriptions at Sr. No.22(e) clearly mentions that Op No.2 is not liable for any damage caused to the product due to use of components and software not supplied by Dell; that the complainant denied visiting the service centre and getting any service and insisted on a new system exchange with compensation, thus the complainant now cannot come to the consumer forum and bring a dispute for which he was offered a solution but he only did not opt for, which shows that the complainant is not interested in getting the laptop serviced, but he was only interested in replacement for reasons only best known to him; that once the system is purchased and if they have any technical issues, then the customers have to contact technical support team of Op No.2 i.e. Dell Technical support at Toll Free No.1800-425-0088 or landline No.080-25107901 (Mon. to Fri. 9 AM to 6 PM) and report the technical issues; that once the complaint is registered, the technical support team of OP No.2 helps to assist the customer and resolve the reported issued on it; that the option for going to shopkeeper/ distributor to get the service & repairs instead of Op No.2 technical team is itself a violation of warranty and service policy and Op No.2 cannot be made liable for it. On merits, it is submitted that Op No.2 did not receive any notification from the complainant or distributor till 08.2.2017, where he raised issues with battery for the first time, however, the complainant claims that he has faced some issued with battery from the very beginning of purchase i.e. May 2016; that on diagnosis by the Dell representative, the battery health was found to be excellent, therefore, the complainant is trying to mislead this Forum; that Dell representative Sridhar Gurumurthy first spoke to the customer on 23.3.2017 and offered to assist him as per warranty terms & conditions, but did not get any response from the complainant; that Dell representative also spoke to the complainant on 28.3.2017, when the complainant categorically denied to visit the authorized service station of Op No.2 and email was sent to the complainant, to which he has not replied yet. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Further, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 has recorded his statement to the effect that the reply filed by Op No.2 be read as same on behalf of Op No.1.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.CA & Ex.CB and closed evidence on 17.8.2017. On the other hand, Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A; documents Annexure R2/A to Annexure R2/D, Ex.R2/A and closed evidence on 06.10.2017. Further, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 has recorded his statement to the effect that the evidence submitted by Op No.2 be read as same on behalf of Op No.1.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased a Laptop make Dell 3558 5th GEN 13 4GH 1TB Service Tag-7QN1C82 Express Service Code-16848290594 in the sum of Rs.30,800/- vide Invoice No.545 dt. 02.05.2016 (Ex.CA) from Op No.1. The dispute between the parties ‘according to the complainant, is that from the very beginning of purchase of said Laptop, its battery is not properly charging as the battery backup is only for half an hour and he approached the Op No.1 many times for the same, but all in vain. On the other hand, according to the Ops, the complainant violated the conditions of software warranty on the system by installing 3rd party Microsoft Windows as mentioned in the first part of the service description at Sr. No.19 and Sr. No.22 (e). On the one hand, the Op No.2 contended that the complainant has not approached the technical team of Op No.2 to repair his product, rather he contacted the Op No.1 to get the service, which is violation of warranty & service policy, whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.2 contended that the complainant had installed the 3rd party Microsoft Window. When the complainant has not approached the Op No.2, then how the Op No.2 came to know that the complainant has installed the 3rd party Microsoft Window. Therefore, the stand of the Op No.2 is contradictory in itself.
6. If the complainant has not contacted the service centre of OP No.2 and only contacted the Op No.1 i.e. distributor/shopkeeper for service, then it was the duty of the Op No.1 to send the complainant to the service centre. Similarly, on the one hand, the Op No.2 is alleging that the complainant has not contacted the Op No.2 or the service centre, whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.2 has mentioned in his reply that on diagnosis by the Dell representative, the battery health was found to be excellent and the service check up was done to the complete satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, this stand of the Op No.2 is also contradictory in itself. According to the complainant, there was a complaint regarding the battery as the backup of the battery was very low and the Ops have not replaced the same. As the backup of the battery is very low, it means that there was defect in the battery. The Ops has neither mentioned any reason why the backup of the battery is low nor replaced the same. Therefore, the contention of the complainant has force. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have committed a mistake in not replacing the battery of the laptop in question. Hence, the Ops are deficient in service.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion as-well-as in the interest of justice, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to replace the battery of said laptop with new one and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.11.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Ashutosh Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the Op No.1.
Shri Jarnail Singh, Adv. for Op No.2.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:27.11.2017. Member Presiding Member.
