| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 30.1.2017 Decided on: 8.11.2017 Rahul Bhandari aged about 49 yrs.S/o Dr.Baldev Raj Bhandari R/o H.No.143, Manjit Nagar, Bhadson Road, Patiala (Punjab). …………...Complainant Versus 1. M/s Dell International Service India Private Ltd.(Manufacturer) Head Office: No.12/2-A, 13/1-A, Divyashree Greens, Inner Ring Road, Challaghatta. Varthur Hubli, Domlur, Bangalore-560071, through its Managing Director/Head. 2. M/s Compunindia-Dell Express Ship Affilliate,(Supplier) GNG Electronics Pvt. Ltd.C/o YCH Logistics India Pvt. Ltd.No.67, Mathiravedu Village, Vellappanchavadi, CHENNAI-600077, Tamil Nadu, through its Head/Authorizsed Signatory. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Alok Dewan, Advocate,counsel for complainant. Sh.Avneet Singh Billing, Advocate Counsel for OP No.1. Opposite party No.2 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one Dell Inspiron 15 3558 Laptop-5th Gen Intel Core i35015U through on-line service on 5.10.2016 vide invoice No.,500105061 which was dispatched by OP no.2 and delivered to the complainant on 10.10.2016. It is averred that on using the same, the complainant observed that the said laptop was having problem with the connectivity to internet through wifi infrastructure available at his residence. The complainant discussed the matter with Op No.2 vide e-mail dated 18.10.2016 and thereafter on the advice of Op no.2, the matter was taken up with the service team of Op no.1 both on phone as well as through e-mail. The OP No.1 took 4 to 5 remote attempts to repair the said laptop but failed to rectify the same. Whereas another Laptop of ‘Dell ‘company worked perfectly fine with the same internet connectivity infrastructure. The OP no.1 made 3 ‘onsite attempts to rectify this laptop on 3.11.2016, 23.11.2016 and 16.12.2016 respectively but to no avail. Thereafter OP no.2 told the complainant to take the laptop to its service centre at Chandigarh. At this the complainant told OP no.1 to pick up the laptop from the residence of the complainant which OP no.1 refused to do. As the laptop could not be repaired after 4-5 online and two on-site attempts and also the OP no.1 refused to replace the laptop, the matter was escalated to the CEO of the OPs (Mr.Michael Dell) through complainant’s e-mail dated 29.11.2016, requesting his intervention for the replacement of the defective laptop. The CEO did not prefer to intervene and referred it to its service team. The representative of Op no.1, Mr.Sujay Jadhav telephonically informed the complainant that providing replacement for a defective supply was not in lien with their company policy. Failing to get the laptop repaired/replaced, the complainant sent a notice for taking legal action to OPs through e-mail dated 9.12.2016.OPs responded to this notice telephonically on 12.12.2016 & 13.12.2016 and offered to provide a ‘credit note’ for purchase of another laptop from their local dealer after an inspection of the said defective laptop supplied by them, which was agreed to by the complainant an inspection visit was fixed for 16.12.2016.The complainant sought certain clarifications from the OPs vide e-mail dated 14.12.2016.OP no.2 refused to refund the excess amount in case the new laptop proposed for buying using ‘credit note’ was of a lower value than the said defective laptop vide its e-mail dated 15.12.2016.It is further averred that instead of being considerate to the agony suffered by the complainant, OP no.1 pressurized the complainant to “compulsirely purchase” a product of higher value from their product range against the proposed ‘credit note’. Thereafter, the representative of Op no.1 visited the house of the complainant on 16.12.2016 but the defect could not be rectified and the representative of Op no.1 sought another opportunity for the needful. As the complainant had to go on a vacation, he was not available at home from 19.12.2016 to 1.1.2017, the complainant requested Op no.1 to arrange this visit on Saturday or Sunday (i.e. 17.12.2016 or 18.12.2016) but OPs failed to respond to the e-mails sent by the complainant. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of physical as well as mental harassment at the hands of the OPs and failure on the part of the OPs to replace the laptop amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. Whereas OP no.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In the reply filed by Op no.1, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one laptop manufactured by it from OP no.2.It is submitted by Op no.1 that when a complaint is registered with ‘Dell’ fault is diagnosed and then an engineer is arranged to visit the customer in order to replace the faulty parts. In the present case, it was found that the fault was with the ‘wifi’ card and hence the engineer was sent at Customer’s location with the ‘wifi’ card for replacement which was replaced on 3.11.2016 under SER reference #84907301102.After repairing the same, its engineer checked the system performance and the system was working fine. After a few days, the complainant again contacted OP no.1 with the same issue and the engineer of OP no.1 under ref.SER 84907491101 checked the system functionality and reported that there was no such issue and the system was working fine. The complainant again approached the Dell and Op no.1 arranged for the engineer to re-visit the site to get the windows OS installed under SER ref.#84907656995.The engineer found that the DUSB was not working. Dell informed the complainant regarding the same and sought a convenient dale from the complainant to revisit and resolve the issue. However, the complainant was not ready for the same as he had to go out of station and thereafter the case could not be resolved. It is further submitted that Op no.1 offered the complainant to get the system repaired and in case the same issue occurred again, then Dell would provide him the ‘credit note’ of the system value so that he could buy the different system of his choice of the same value or pay additional and buy different model. This was a good will gesture on the part of Op no.1.But the complainant demanded that he would buy a new system with lower price and he wanted the refund of the difference of the amount which OP no.,1 did not agreed to.OP has always been ready to oblige its warranty obligations with repairs but the complainant was adamant for the refund and he was not ready to get it repaired. OP has always been willing to fulfill its obligations under warranty policy. As such OP cannot be said to be deficient in service and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld.counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Nitesh Ranjan, authorized representative o Dell International Service India Pvt. Ltd alongwith documents Exs.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one laptop make Dell Inspiron 15 3558 from OP no.2 vide invoice dated 5.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.41590/-.Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 are the e-mail communications between the complainant and the OPs. The laptop in question was purchased by the complainant on 5.10.2016 and having ‘In Home Service’ warranty. On using the same, the complainant found that there was problem in the laptop and the complainant approached the OPs. An engineer of the OP no.1 visited the premises of the complainant time and again but the problem could not be rectified. The complainant was not able to use the laptop even for a single day after spending a huge amount of Rs.41590/-.The very purpose of his purchasing the laptop was defeated. Morethan a year has passed but the defect in the laptop could not be rectified and the complainant underwent a lot of physical and mental harassment at the hands of the OP. Failure on the part of the OP to rectify the defect inspite of repeated attempts amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.1 to refund an amount of Rs.41,590/- i.e. the price of the Laptop.Op No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 8.11.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
