Delhi

StateCommission

A/466/2019

AKHILESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DELL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY LAXMI

26 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 26.09.2019

First Appeal No. 466/2019

(Arising out of the order dated 04.06.2019 passed in complaint case No. 48/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

Sh. Akhilesh

S/o Late Sh. Govind Ram,

R/o 5-A/10909, 2^nd Floor,

Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005              .....Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Dell India, Pvt. Ltd.

At Divya Shree Greens,

Ground Floor, 12/1, 12/2A,

13/1A, Challa Ghatta Village,

Varthur Hobli, Bangluru South,

•  

 

2. Digicom Completer Solutions

Limited At I-32, Ground Floor,

Opp. KFC, Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024....Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                   

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     

 

 

Salma Noor: Presiding Member

 

1.  Present appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.48/2015 whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts relating to the present appeal are that appellant/complainant purchased a Dell Laptop on 03.10.2011 by paying Rs.80,577/-. The laptop purchased was having the warranty of 03 years from the date of purchase i.e. 03.10.2011. It was alleged that the laptop started creating problems and was repaired on 05.02.2012 after the complaint made by the appellant/complainant. It was alleged that on 15.07.2013 again the laptop started creating different kinds of problems which were informed to the respondent-1/OP-1 who gave the email address of respondent-2/OP-2 for repair of the laptop. The laptop problem was rectified on 16.07.2013. It was alleged that again the laptop started creating problem in the month of August which was rectified on 05.09.2013. It was alleged that on 26.11.2013 and 06.09.2014, the laptop again created problems which were rectified accordingly. It was stated by the complainant that on 28.09.2014, the laptop was dropped by the appellant/complainant accidentally under guarantee period and the appellant/complainant made the complaint to the respondents/OPs. On complaint, respondent-1/OP-1 asked the appellant/complainant to submit the photographs of the said laptop which was sent through gmail on 01.10.2014 and again on 02.10.2014. Thereafter, respondent-2/OP-2 visited at the residence of the appellant/complainant on 11.10.2014 to repair the said laptop and changed the parts of the laptop. It was alleged that after changing the parts in the laptop, it had started creating different kinds of problems and appellant/complainant sent a written complaint to respondent-1/OP-1 and requested to solve the issues regarding the laptop to respondent-1/OP-1 paying no heed to his request. Thus appellant/complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum with the prayer to direct the respondent-1/OP-1 to replace the defective laptop with the same model and capacity or to refund the entire cost of the laptop i.e. Rs.80,577/- along with interest @18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,500/- towards litigation expenses.   
3. On notice respondent-1/OP-1 contested the complaint by filing the written statement inter alia stating that the appellant/complainant used the disputed laptop for a period of 20 months without any complaint. It was stated that appellant/complainant never reported any technical issue with the said laptop prior to 03.07.2013. Since the laptop in question was working properly for a period of 20 months, hence there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop. It was further submitted that the laptop carries a product warranty for a period of 3 years which reads as under:-

“Unless specified otherwise, Dell warrants to the Customer that Dell- branded Products will from invoice date be free from defects in materials and workmanship affecting normal use for a period of one year or such other period as may be set out in Dell’s invoice.(“Standard Warranty” And “Relevant Warranty” period as appropriate).

 

This Standard Warranty or Relevant Warranty does not cover damage, fault, failure or malfunction due to external causes, including accident, abuse, misuse, problems with electrical power, servicing not authorized by Dell, usage and/or storage and/or installation not in accordance with Product instructions,, failure to perform required preventive maintenance, normal wear and tear, act of God, fire, flood, war, act of violence or any similar occurrence; products with missing or altered Service Tags or serial numbers; any attempt by any person other than Dell personnel or any person authorized by Dell, to adjust, repair or support the Products and problems caused by use of parts and components not supplied by Dell. The Standard Warranty or Relevant Warranty does not cover any items that are in one or more of the following categories: software; external devices; accessories or parts added to the Product after the Product is shipped from Dell; accessories or parts added to the Product through Dell’s Custom Factory Integration (CFI) program; accessories or parts that are not installed in the Dell factory; or Third Party Products purchased under Dell Software and Peripherals (S&P) Program.”

 

4. It was further submitted that appellant/complainant on 03.07.2013 for the first time reported the technical issue to respondent-1/OP-1 diagnosing the problem in the system and required part was replaced as per the warranty entitlement. It was stated that appellant/complainant reported the respondent-1/OP-1 on 28.09.2014 that system in question has been dropped by the appellant/complainant and has got damaged. On the basis of warranty entitlement of respondent-1/OP-1 offered repair for the damaged system and resolved the issue on 13.10.2014. It was further submitted by the respondent-1/OP-1 that being a reputed company, it had never denied its support for which the appellant/complainant was entitled as per the warranty terms. It was stated that the initial issues regarding laptop were not a result of any hardware failure and being the system outside of the warranty period, respondent-1/OP-1 is willing to provide its service on chargeable basis to the appellant/complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. Responden-2/OP-2 was proceeded exparte before the Ld. District Forum and appellant/complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of respondent-1/OP-1 reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
6. Appellant/complainant as well as respondent-1/OP-1 filed evidence in the form of affidavits. The Ld. District Forum after hearing the arguments on behalf of appellant/complainant as well as respondent-1/OP-1 dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant observing as under:-

“It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a laptop, “Dell SPS15L502X” with the warranty of three years on 03.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.80,577/- from OP-2. As per the complainant, he went to OP-1 for non-functioning of the laptop in question for the first time on 05.02.2012. The Ex. CW1/C shows that the steps to fix in the laptop were ‘Install OS and drives so system working fine’. It is notices that the complainant visited OP-1 for the first time after four months of purchasing the laptop that too for getting the OS installed, which certainly is not a technical or a hardware problem.

 

Thereafter the complainant approached the OP-1 for problems in his laptop on 08.07.2013 with heating issues and after checking the system the OP-1 replaced certain parts in the laptop. The laptop was returned to the complainant on 10.07.2013. The next complaint registered by the complainant was on 05.09.2013 and the problem was rectified on 26.11.2013 wherein the issue reported was LCD damaged and after checking the system and changing LCD the system started working fine.

 

Further on 28.09.2013 the complainant accidently dropped the laptop and it stopped functioning properly which was rectified according to OP-1. But as per complainant the laptop is not working fine till date.

 

The sequence of the event shows that the technical issue in the laptop arose on 03.07.2013 which is after a period of 20 months of purchasing the laptop. Therefore we are of the opinion that if the laptop was working fine for the initial 20 months then there cannot be any manufacturing defect in the said system. It is further noticed that the complainant went to the OP-1 twice prior to the accidental dropping of the laptop and on both the occasions the complaint was looked into and OP-1 rectified the problem. Complainant admits that the laptop accidently got dropped from him. It is only after the accidental dropping of the laptop that the laptop could not be brought into proper functioning.

 

Therefore, the above facts and circumstances prove that OP-1 provided support to the complainant whenever an issue was reported as per the warranty terms and conditions. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 which results in the dismissal of the complaint with no order as to costs.”

 

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. Part heard the counsel for appellant/complainant at the admission stage. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant purchased a Dell laptop on 03.10.2011 for Rs.80,577/- with a warranty of three years from the date of purchase i.e. 03.10.2011. It is also admitted position that the appellant/complainant purchased the laptop in question from respondent-1/OP-1. The problem was rectified by the respondent-1/OP-1. It is also admitted position that certain parts of the laptop was also replaced by respondent-1/OP-1 without taking any charges which comes under the warranty. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that on 28.09.2013 the laptop was accidently dropped and stopped functioning properly which was rectified according to the respondent-1/OP-1. But according to the appellant/complainant the laptop is not working fine till date. The sequence of the events shows that the technical issue in the laptop arose on 03.07.2013 which was after a period of 20 months of the purchasing of the laptop it means that the laptop was working fine for the initial 20 months, thereafter it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the said system. It is also admitted fact that prior to the accidental dropping of the laptop, appellant/complainant went to respondent-1/OP-1 twice and the problem was rectified by respondent-1/OP-1. Appellant/complainant admits that the said laptop was accidently dropped by him and only after accidental dropping of the laptop, the laptop could not be brought into proper functioning. It is clearly mention in the warranty terms of respondent-1/OP-1 that warranty does not cover damage, fault, failure or malfunctioning due to external causes including accidents.
9. Hence it is proved that respondent-1/OP-1 provided support to the appellant/complainant whenever the issue was raised prior to the warranty terms and conditions. Thus, I find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of respondent-1/OP-1 and find no infirmity in the impugned order, that needs any interference in the order passed by the District Forum.
10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands dismissed in limine.
11. A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                        (Salma Noor)

                                                                                                                                                                                         Presiding President