CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.144/2012
SH. CHETAN SHARDA,
S/O SH. YASH PAL SHARDA,
R/O H.NO.-28-I/1, VISHNU GARDEN,
PO GURUKULA KANGRI, BANK LANE,
HARIDWAR, UTTARAKHAND-249404
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S DELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
DIVYASREE GREENS, GROUND FLOOR,
# 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, CHALLAGHATTA VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI, BANAGLORE SOUTH,
KARNATAKA-560071
- LAPCOM(COMPUTER AND PERIPHERALS)
ADDRESS 1: 105 PRAGATI HOUSE, 47-48,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
ADDRESS 2: 105 A-106 BAJAJ HOUSE,
97 NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 03.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of complainant is that he purchased a Dell Inspiron N5010 laptop from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1 on 25.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.44,000/-. The said laptop had warranty of one year. Complainant started facing repeated problem of hanging of computer while working during September-October 2011 which did not get resolved for a long time, forcing complainant to approach OP-1. The authorized representative of OP-1 asked for the Service Tag No. of laptop which was checked and told by complainant as mentioned on the ‘Invoice’. Complainant was shocked to know that the Service Tag given in the invoice and that shown in the laptop was assigned to some other Desktop Computer and not to his laptop. Complaint asked OP-1 to resolve the same as the laptop has been purchased from OP-2, authorized seller of OP-1 on which OP-1 asked complainant to approach OP-2 to get the issue resolved. OP-2 being the authorized seller of OP-1 was under a duty to resolve the issue either by providing valid Service Tag number or replacing the laptop with another laptop having valid Service Tag Number but OP-2 failed to do so.
The whole issue was mailed on 02.11.11 by complainant to OP-1 requesting it to rectify the invalid Service Tag Number and resolve the software problem i.e. hanging of computer. Complaint received call form OP-1 alongwith email dated 11.11.11 whereby OP-1 has asked complaint to wait for two weeks to get the issue resolved. The issue was not resolved by OP-1 for a long time ultimately a legal notice was sent to OPs asking them to provide valid Service Tag Number and in alternate to provide a new laptop with similar configuration. After receiving the legal notice, OPs requested complainant to settle the issue outside the court and complainant agreed to it. OP-1 sent email dated 22.12.11 to complainant whereby they have informed complainant that OP-2 has agreed to replace the laptop with another laptop manufactured in India with valid warranty and similar configuration. Thereafter inspite of repeated reminder by complainant OPs refused to replace the laptop.
It is further stated that in the meanwhile OP-2 got the Service Tag Number of defective laptop altered through deceitful means, for which even OP-1 refused to take responsibility. The new Service Tag allegedly rectified by OP-2 does not show the complainant as the authorized owner of the laptop and neither does it entitled him to receive effective background support from OP-1 in future. It is stated that it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is prayed that OPs be directed to provide the valid Service Tag Number and resolve the software/hardware related problem with new warranty of one year or in alternative provide another new laptop of the same make and configuration and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.20,000/- for cost of litigation.
OP-1 in the reply took the plea that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-1 and OP-1 has been wrongly impleaded in the complaint. It is submitted that laptop sold to complainant was an unauthorized import to India from US/Canada and the same was not manufactured to be sold in India. Complainant has purchased the same from OP-2 and OP-2 was not authorized by OP-1 to sell products therein. OP-2 is not authorized dealer of OP-1. The products has been fraudulently sold by OP-2 and through unauthorized import product OP-2 is making huge profits. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 in the reply took the plea that there was no cause of action against OP-2 as the laptop was manufactured by OP-1 and the complaint against OP-2 is not maintainable and is bad for mis-joinder of parties. OP-1 had rectified issue of service tag number as per information available at the site of OP-1. But complainant later on started demanding replacement of the laptop after using the same for almost one year which OP-2 on the direction of OP-1 has also agreed but later on complainant started bargaining for upgraded version of laptop about which OP-2 did not hear anything from OP-1. It is further stated that issue of hanging is not related to the manufacturing defect of the product. Rectification of service tag cannot be done by OP-2 as such same does not come in the authority purview of OP-2. It is the OP-1 being the manufacturer had rectified the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the record.
The fact of the matter is that laptop in question is manufactured by OP-1 and the same has been sold by OP-2. Complainant has placed on record number of emails exchanged between the parties and more particularly with OP-1. In none of the emails OP-1 has told complainant that OP-2 is not authorized dealer and the product in question was unauthorisedly imported in India and sold to complainant. It is only in the reply OP has taken such plea. It is an admitted fact that OP-2 has agreed to replace the laptop but for the reason best known to OPs the laptop was not replaced. Obviously there was a defect in the service tag as well as there was a problem of hanging. The matter was duly brought to the notice of OPs and once the OPs have agreed to replace the laptop there was no reason for them not to do so. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.
OP-2 is directed to refund Rs.44,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Once the amount is received by complainant, then he will hand over the laptop to OP-2.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
