BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Jasbir Saini s/o Sh. Baljeet Singh resident of V.P.O. Karasan, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Ms. ALPHA COMPUTERS, SCO-170, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt., through its Proprietor.
2. DELL India Private Ltd. One Imperial Place, Courtyard level, Business Centre, New Delhi- 110001, Through its Manager/authorized signatory.

2nd Address: DEL International Services, India (P) Ltd. Divyashree Greens, Ground Flour, Sys Nos. 12/1, 12/2-A & 13/1-A Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru, 560071, through its authorized signatory.

   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Gurjit Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    OP No.1 already ex parte.

                    Shri Nipun Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

                   a) To return the amount of Rs.38,000/- i.e. the costs of the computer   along with interest @24% p.a. from the date of payment till its  realization.

b) To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation on account of  financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment.

c) To pay Rs.21,000/-, as litigation charges.

 And Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that  the complainant has purchased a computer Desk-Top DX451-INSPIRON -22-3280-core 13-4GB-1TB-WIN 10-21.5 from OP No.1 vide invoice Ac/20-21/9406 dated 03.01.2021 for total sum of Rs.38,000/-. At the time of purchasing the above said computer, OP No.1 assured the complainant that the computer is of a good company and that there will be no problem in it and that it will be responsible if any defect arise therein within warranty period. After one month from the purchase of the said computer, it started giving trouble in its functioning as it became slow while operating. Matter was reported to OP No.1. OP No.1 told the complainant to make a call on the service centre of the OPs. However, the person sitting at Service centre told the complainant to bring the computer at service centre-Ambala Cantt. The representative of service centre kept the computer of the complainant and told him to collect the same after two days and when the complainant went to the service Centre, they further told the complainant to come after two days and retained the computer for about a week and thereafter handed over the same to the complainant without any repair. On the other hand, the complainant was told that the parts needed for the computer are not available and that they will demand the same from the OP No.2 and then they will inform the complainant to bring the computer back for its repair. The complainant waited for the information from the OPs and made repeated phone calls to them but no response.. The complainant again in the end of March, 2021, visited the OP No.1 along with his computer and requested to do the needful, but the OP No.1 did not give satisfactory reply to the complainant and rather told the complainant to keep the computer with them and that as and when the parts will be available from OP No. 2, the needful will be done. Now the OPs have refused to rectify the defective computer. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 17.11.2021 upon the OPs through his counsel and requested them to do the needful, but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2022.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that the laptop was shipped and originally invoiced to OP No.1 by the manufacturer-OP No.2 and it was resold by OP No.1 to the complainant, as per his own version. The warranty issued by the manufacturer is subject to certain terms and conditions. Under the warranty clause, OP No.2 is to carry out repairs free of cost and in case the warranty of the product expires or warranty clauses are violated, then it will repair the product on chargeable basis. No complaint was made by the complainant to the technical team of OP No.2 It is always recommended to the customers 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 1800-425-0088 or Land Line 080-2510-7901 (Mon to Fri: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and report the technical issues. As per the version of complainant himself he has deposited the product with OP No.1 and not with the OP No.2 service centre/technical team. Further as per the records maintained by OP No.2, the complainant approached the OP No.2 only when he sent a legal notice and OP No.2 never heard from him before, with regard to any complaint with the product in question. After receiving the legal notice, Dell has contacted multiple times and offer service to understand the root cause irrespective of system is out of warranty since Jan 2021 however customer refused to got it checked. Furthermore, the complainant has not examined any expert to prove the inherent/manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Rahul Tripathi, son of Late Shri Alok Tripathi, resident of #413-A, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.  
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither rectifying the defective laptop in question, despite the fact that the same was under warranty period, nor refunding the price thereof, as it suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, the OPs are deficient in rendering service and adopted unfair trade practice.  
8.           On the contrary, Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that since the complainant failed to prove that any defect occurred in the said laptop during the warranty period, as such, if any defect arise therein, after expiry of warranty period thereof, the OPs were not liable to rectify the same, free of cost.  He further submitted that no evidence has been placed on record to prove that the laptop in question suffered from any manufacturing defect.  In support of his contention the learned counsel for the OP No.2 placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and Anr. 2017(3) CPR 24 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

"….While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s)..."

9.       The plea of the complainant is that the laptop in question got defective during warranty but the OPs neither rectified the defect nor refunded the amount thereof.  On the other hand the stand of the OP No.2 is that complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that the laptop in question suffered from any defect during warranty period or even thereafter. At the same time, he has neither moved any application under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission nor has placed on file any expert/lab report/opinion to prove that the laptop in question suffered from any manufacturing defects. It may be stated here that in support of his contention the complainant has only produced his own affidavit. He has neither placed on record any job-sheet nor any expert report to prove that laptop in question was indeed suffering from any defect during warranty or it was having any inherent/manufacturing defect. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 09.01.2023.

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President