Haryana

StateCommission

A/205/2016

DELL INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LEKHA GEORGE - Opp.Party(s)

SALIL SABHLOK

18 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      205 of 2016

Date of Institution:      10.03.2016

Date of Decision :       18.05.2016

 

Dell India Private Limited, Divyasree Greens, Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur, Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Lekha George w/o Dr.Bitra George, Resident of B-14/24, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Dell India Private Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 8^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Lekha George-complainant/respondent claiming compensation on account of supplying defective Note Book (laptop) to the complainant, was accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“7.     We, therefore, accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund Rs.10,000/-  charged from the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.11.2014 till realization. She is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

2.      The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that she purchased a Dell Laptop Vostra 3400 from the opposite party/appellant in 2010. In February, 2014, the hinges of the laptop were broken. She approached the appellant to rectify the defect. The appellant asked the respondent/complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- for the repair of the laptop stating that the laptop was not covered under warranty. Thus, the respondent got the laptop repaired from the appellant by paying Rs.5,000/-.

3.      In June, 2014 i.e. within six months from the date of repair, the respondent again faced the same problem in the laptop. Request being made to rectify the defect, the appellant again demanded Rs.5,000/- for the repair of laptop. As per requirement of the appellant, the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- online. An engineer of the appellant visited the house of the respondent to repair the laptop and told that a few more parts would be delivered and the problem could be resolved only thereafter but of no avail.  Hence complaint.  

4.      The opposite party/appellant contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the complainant had purchased the laptop with one year accidental policy and the warranty was valid upto October 3^rd, 2011. There was neither any deficiency in service nor any manufacturing defect in the laptop. Since the period of warranty had expired, the respondent was rightly charged for the repair of the laptop. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party/appellant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Indisputably, the respondent/complainant had purchased the laptop from the appellant on October 4^th, 2010. It is also not in dispute that the laptop developed defect in February, 2014 and the same was got repaired from the appellant against payment of Rs.5,000/- (Exhibit C-1 and C-2). The grievance of the respondent is that the laptop against developed the same defect in June, 2014 which was repaired by the appellant about four months ago.  The plea of the appellant that the laptop was repaired to the satisfaction of the respondent, is not tenable. A perusal of the service order Exhibit C-2 clearly reflects that the respondent had made an endorsement upon it as under:-

                   “One part is still not changed. Repair not done.”

7.      The respondent has not claimed the warranty. She has paid for repair. The appellant has not disputed for repair charges. That being so, charging of the amount for repairs and without carrying out the same was the grievance of the complainant/respondent. Therefore, the District Forum rightly issued the direction to the appellant.

8.      In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.8700/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL