THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO. 566/2015

ORDER DATED.20/11/2019

(Appeal filed against the order in cc.no. 844/2013, CDRF, Ernakulam )

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K.SURENDRA MOHAN:PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Shajahan P.H, S/o Haneefa,

          Linu manzil, Kaloor, Koch. 17.

          (By Adv. George cherian Karippaparambil)

V/S

RESPONDENT:

          M/s. Dell India Pvt. Ltd, Dell Exclusive store,

          Cochin, 33/1777B, Muraliravam, Zground floor,

          NH bye pass, Palarivattom, Kochi. 28 rep by its Manager. 

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

          Appellant is the complainant  and the respondent is the opposite party before the District forum, Ernakulam in C.C.No. 844/13 .

          2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

          3. The complainant is an advocate clerk.  He had purchased  Dell  XPS 15, laptop to do his  typing works  manufactured by the opposite party on 05/10/2011 for Rs. 60,135/- having one year original warranty and year extended  warranty.  The battery of the Lap top became  defective and he has lodged three complaints before the opposite party on 06/02/2012, 27/02/2012 and 10/03/2012.  But there was no response  from the side of opposite party.  Complainant was forced to purchase  another  battery from the  online IT shop on 30/03/2012   by spending  Rs. 3,800/- .  Complainant  alleged that the DVD drive in the laptop was became defective and he purchase new one.  Due to the defect of the laptop  the complainant  could not  use it and he has sent so many complaints  before the opposite party,  but the opposite party did not turn up to repair the same.  The laptop is having  inherent  manufacturing defects which could not be  carried by the opposite party in spite of  repeated repairs within the warranty  period.  On 06/02/2013 during the  extended warranty period.  The  lap top  complainant completely  ceased to function, the complainant  entrusted the lap top  to the service centre on 16/02/2013.  The service centre demanded  Rs. 20,000/- towards repairing charge.  The complainant  stated that the laptop is having warranty coverage up to 18/10/2014.  But the opposite party  has not  taken any action to settle the demand of the complainant.   Hence the complaint.

          4. The opposite party contented  that the lap top is having only one year warranty.  The complaint  received  them only on 06-02-2013 was beyond  the warranty period.  Hence  the same  could be repaired only on payment  of requisite  service charge as well as payment of parts required for replacement.  Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          5. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties,  the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint  directing the opposite party to rectify the defect  of the lap top to the satisfaction of the complainant  on payment basis.  Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is preferred.

          6. The appellant/opposite party argued that the District Forum ought to have appreciated the fact that the opposite party had adopted unfair trade practice and had not issued the extended warranty.  The District forum  has failed to appreciate the fact that the repeated complaints on 06/02/2012, 27/02/2012 and 10-03-2012 by replacing  battery worth Rs. 3,800/- and DVD drive worth Rs. 4,500/- would clearly beyond  doubt establish the defects in the lap top.

7.  The District Forum found that the opposite party has provided only one year warranty for the lap top and the complainant  approached the service centre of the opposite party for the first time on 06/02/2013 that is beyond  the period of warranty.   Hence  the opposite party  demanded  repairing  charge to rectify the defects of the lap top and the complainant is liable to pay the repairing charges.  In the above  mentioned circumstances the District Forum found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get the lap top repaired on payment basis.  Accordingly the  District Forum direct the opposite party to rectify the defects of the lap top to the satisfaction of the complainant on payment basis  if the complainant wishes to do so.

          8.   We perused the entire records on file and heard the arguments of the parties.  We also find that the decision taken by the District Forum is correct and adequate.  The complainant/appellant  has not produced any evidence  that the lap top became defective warranty period  and the  complainant has not produced any document  to showing  that the opposite party has given to years extended warranty for the lap top.  Hence there is no ground to allow the appeal.

          In the result appeal is dismissed.  No order  of costs.

             JUSTICE   K.SURENDRA MOHAN:PRESIDENT

 BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sh/-