IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 29th day of February, 2016
Filed on 27..10..2015
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No. 128/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Satheesh Chandra. T.C. M/s. Dell India
Geetha Bhavan (Supplier) Divyasree Greens
Ambalappuzha P.O. Ground Floor, 12/1/12/2A
Alappuzha – 688 561 12/1A, Challagta Village
Varthur Hubli, Domlur
Bangaluru, Karnataka – 560 036
(By Adv. Joju Kainady)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE. D (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a laptop from the opposite party through online at a cost of Rs.40,290/- on 29.5.2013, and the product was supplied on 15.6.2013 through courier. It is contended that the machine became defunct on many occasions during the warranty period. Even though the opposite party repaired it many times the defect with regard to the display and hard disk were not rectified and the defects are still existing. In the meanwhile the warranty expired and the product is totally functionless. The opposite party never cared to replace the product even though the product became defective on many occasions when the warranty was in existence. Now the product is totally functionless, when contacted the opposite party they demanded to pay an amount of Rs.7000/-, accordingly the complainant remitted the amount by online transfer to Dell A/c, but the amount was returned to the complainant’s bank A/c, saying that the said product is outdated and can’t be repaired. According to the complainant, the system never served for the purpose for which he brought and now it is totally functionless. The complainant sustained much mental agony and inconvenience and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared before the Forum through counsel, but they did not file any version and also absent for the subsequent proceedings and hence opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A3 were marked.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2) Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings?
5 Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a laptop from the opposite party through online. The product became defective on many times during the warranty period and the opposite party never cared to replace the product. On expiry of the warranty the product became again functionless and the complainant has transferred an amount of Rs.7000/- to the opposite party a/c for rectifying the defect. But the amount was returned back to the complainant’s a/c stating that the product is outdated and the spare parts are not available. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 series are the statement of a/c. Ext.A2 (a) statement of a/c showing Rs.7000/- has been transferred to opposite party’s a/c. Ext.A2 (b) is the letter, Ext.A3 is the letter dated 4.3.2015 issued to the opposite party. According to the complainant, the product became defunct on many occasions as the opposite party has supplied a defective product to the complainant. But nothing was produced in evidence to prove that the product became defective on many times during the warranty period. There is absolutely no evidence before us to believe that the product became defective on many times during the warranty period. Ext.A2 (a) shows that after the expiry of the warranty when the product became defective, the complainant has transferred an amount of Rs.7000/- to the opposite party’s a/c as intimated by them towards the repairing charges. Ext.A2 (b) shows that the cash was returned to the complainant’s a/c stating that the product is outdated and the spare parts are not available. It is pertinent to note that the product supplied in the year 2013 May and on January 2015 the opposite party intimated to the complainant that the spare parts are not available and returned the amount paid towards repairing charges ie. only after 17 months from the date of purchase. The complainant has used the product only for a short span of time. The opposite party can’t wash off his hands from liability by simply saying that the spare parts are not available. Since the opposite party has not rectified the defect they have committed deficiency in service. The opposite party is liable to repair the product to the satisfaction of the complainant. If it can’t be repaired the opposite party is liable to refund the price of the product after deducting 20% depreciation. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to rectify the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant after accepting repair charge of Rs.7000/- from the complainant. If the product can’t be repaired, refund the price of the product after deducting 20% depreciation ie. Rs.32,232/- to the complainant and the complainant is directed to return the defective laptop to the opposite party simultaneously. There is no order as to compensation or costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Statement of account of the complainant
Ext.A2 (a) - Statement of a/c
Ext.A2 (b) - Letter dated 16.2.2015
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 4.3.2015
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 24.7.15
Evidence of the opposite parties: - Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To.
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by: - pr/-
Compared by:-
