Haryana

Karnal

CC/290/2016

Yogesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magnet Computer Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

N.P. Sharma

16 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 290 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt. 21.09.2016

                                                     Date of decision 16.05.2018

 

Yogesh Sharma son of Shri Kamal Kumar Sharma resident of village and post office Rajound, District Kaithal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. Magnet Computer Gallery, opp. Police Station, Assandh, District Karnal through its proprietor Shri Manoj Kumar.

2. Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Divya Shree Greens, Ground Floor, house no.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1, Challaghatta village Varthur Hobli, Airport, Inner Ring Road, Banglore-560071 Karnatka, India through its Managing Director.

 

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri N.P.Sharma Advocate for complainant.

               Opposite party no.1 exparte.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.2.

          

ORDER:

 

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that the complainant purchased a Dell Laptop worth Rs.28,500/- from the OP no.1, vide retail invoice no.603 dated 24.09.2015 with the warranty of one year. In the month of August 2016, the said laptop went out of order and complainant informed the OP no.1 in that regard and the OP no.1 sent the complainant to service centre for lodging the complaint and complainant lodged the complaint with service centre and the engineer visited the house of the complainant on 23.08.2016 to repair the laptop, but he could not do so. Thereafter, on 24.08.2016 another engineer sent by OPs at the house of complainant to repair the laptop and the said engineer made the laptop functional but the said laptop again went out of order. The complainant again lodged a complaint with the service centre on 31.08.2016 and the engineer of the OP again visited the house of the complainant to repair the laptop but he failed to do so. Again on 6.9.2016 the abovesaid engineer again came to the house of the complainant but he miserably failed to rectify the defect in the laptop of the complainant. Ultimately, the said engineer told the complainant the said laptop was having major defect and was beyond repair. Then complainant contacted the OP no.1 and requested him to replace the laptop in question with new one as the same is in warranty, but OP no.1 refused to do so. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 8.9.2016 upon the OPs in that regard but in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 1.3.2017.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that complainant had purchased a Dell Laptop on 24.09.2015 after having full satisfaction with the said product. However, the said laptop was sold to the distributor by OP no.2 on 16.7.2015. It is submitted that under warranty clause, the company is to carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty, and in case the warranty of the product is expired or warranty clause are violated, then the company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the consumer. It is further submitted that as per the warranty policy if there is any issue with the said system then the complainant has to approach the authorized service centre or the company directly to get the proper solution as per warranty entitlement. It is further submitted that the complainant has used the said system with complete satisfaction and as per the record maintained by the OP no.2 the complainant have reported technical issue in the said product in the month of August, 2016 that is after using the said product for almost one year. The OP no.2 has not adopted any unfair trade practice and OP no.2 has provided its services without any delay or negligence whenever asked by the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP no.2 solved the problems as per the warranty entitlements but the complainant was adamant on replacement of the product with a new one and the same was denied by OP no.2. It is further submitted that complainant used the said product for almost one year without any defect which construed that the product does not bear any manufacturing defect. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on  6.10.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitesh Ranjan Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 9.4.2018.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Dell Laptop from OP no.1 for Rs.28500/-, vide invoice no.603 dated 24.09.2015 with one year warranty. In August, 2016 said laptop went out of order and complainant lodged the complaint. On 23.08.2016 Engineer of company visited the house of complainant but could not repair the laptop. On 24.08.2016 another Engineer visited the house of complainant and made the laptop functional.

8.             According to the complainant, the laptop again went out of order and the complainant lodged the complaint and on 31.08.2016 engineer of company visited the house of complainant to repair the laptop but he failed to repair the same and the job sheet/repair order form Ex.C4 was issued in this regard. Again on 6.9.2016 said engineer again visited but failed to rectify the defect and Ex.C-5 is the copy of repair order form in this regard. The complainant alleged that said engineer told to the complainant that the defect in the laptop is beyond repair. The complainant also alleged that the laptop is having a manufacturing defect and prayed for replacement.

9.             On the other hand, OP no.2 contended that under the warranty clause, the company is to carry out repairs free of costs while the product is under warranty and in case the warranty expired or warranty clauses are violated, then company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the consumer. It is further contended that the complainant reported the technical issue in the month of August, 2016 that is after using the product for almost one year and the OP no.2 solved the problem as per warranty entitlement but the complainant was adamant for replacement of the product with a new one and same was denied. The product does not bear any manufacturing defect.

10.            From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that complainant lodged the complaint about the defect in the laptop in question in August, 2016 and the OP no.2 resolved the defect. These facts are clear from the documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 the repair order form. The OP no.2 could not resolve the problem on 23.08.2016 but resolved the same on 24.08.2016. As the defect again developed in the laptop, the complainant again lodged the complaint and the engineer of OP no.2 visited the house of complainant on 31.08.2016 but could not resolve the problem. This fact is clear from the copy of repair order form Ex.C-4. The engineer again visited on 06.09.2016 but this time also could not resolve the problem. This fact is clear from repair order form Ex.C-5. The repair order form Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 clearly shows that the laptop could not be repaired by the engineer of OP no.2. No evidence has been produced by OP no.2 to prove that he has repaired the said laptop. It is admitted case of the parties that the laptop was purchased on 24.09.2015 with one year warranty. The problems could not be resolved on 31.08.2016 and 6.9.2016 which means the laptop was within warranty. Moreover, the OP no.2 has not produced any evidence vide which it can be said that the laptop was not within warranty. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP no.2 failed to remove the defect of the laptop within warranty period and to resolve the grievance of the complainant, hence the OP no.2 is deficient in providing services to the complainant.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to repair the laptop in question of the complainant free of costs. However, it is hereby made clear that if the laptop is not repairable, then replace the same with the same make and model and further if the laptop of same make and model is not available then refund the value of the laptop. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.05.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member