Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased a Laptop of a most trusted brand for his study and as he was a student of system engineering course and while searching for such a system by way of purchase within his financial capacity he came in contact with the op no.1 who proposed to sell the popular and most trusted brand Dell at a consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the op no.2 is the Indian Counter Part of M/s Dell Inc. USA, the maker of the above laptop and op no.3 being the service provider of the said Dell brand computers and allied products.

          Accordingly complainant found that the offer of the op no.1 duly represented by one Satyabrata Ganguly was suitable for his purpose and it was submitted his choice and within his budget and being impressed by the op nos. 2 & 3, complainant purchased the said laptop vide Tax Invoice-cum-challan No.ITA-907 dated 04.01.2012 under the cover of which the op no.1 sold one Dell laptop Inspiron 15R (Ci5, 4,500. 15. 6) Sl. No.2CTOPPI at a consideration of Rs.40,000/-.

          After delivery of the same and after adjusting for uses he discovered defect in the audio system in the speaker of the said laptop and so as per advise of the op no.1 complainant went to op no.3, the Dell Service Centre, but on scrutiny they disclosed that the said laptop is an imported one from Europe, Middle East & Africa and as such they advised the complainant to produce original purchase documents from the op no.1 along with service charge of Rs. 1,364/- and op no.2 & 3 also disclosed that under any obligation to complete the repair of the said laptop and they told that this laptop shall be handed over to the complainant.

          Thereafter being aggrieved the complainant sent several legal notices to op nos. 2 & 3 in the respective address through his Ld. Advocate for relief but in spite of full payment the op no.1 did not supply the right imported product of Dell to supply the faulty product and for which the complainant has suffered much and he has also suffered to continue his engineering study and practically op no.1 adopting unfair trade practice and hopes sold the same and for which as an innocent purchaser at a higher price he is entitled to get relief from the op no.1 for op’s over act and mal practice and for adopting unfair trade practice.

On the other hand op no.1 M/s IT Arena by filing this written statement submitted that complainant purchased the said computer after inspection the laptops displayed and after enquiring about the imported laptop of Dell and also other papers and he selected the particular laptop and purchased the same.  So, op no.1 never allured the complainant to purchase it or did not suppress any fact.  But he has stated that the complainant if actually needed any repairing or services he ought to have deposited the laptop with the copy of his purchase bill to this op no.1 who would arrange free repair within the warranty period but he failed to deposit it within the warranty period.  But till today op no.1 is ready to repair it and moreover if necessary through proper channel, if the same is deposited with the op no.1 against their acknowledgement.

Further he has submitted that he has reported the matter to M/s Siromoni Traders Pvt. Ltd of Siliguri from whom op no.1 purchased the said laptop.  But no response has yet been received and op has stated that as and when reply shall be received from the said M/s Siromoni Traders Pvt. Ltd. and practically there was no fault on the part of the op no.1 and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

On the contrary the op no.2 the Dell India Pvt Ltd and his service centre by filing their written version submitted that complainant had purchased a Dell laptop of Europe, Middle East & African manufacturer and it is imported to the India by unauthorised means and sold to the complainant by op no.1 and the warranty card is valid only in Europe, Middle East & Africa and said system was neither manufactured in India nor sold by Dell India Pvt. Ltd. in India and it is further submitted that op no.1 is not an authorized dealer/retailer of Dell India Pvt. Ltd.  So, op nos. 2 & 3 had no fault and they have no liability and even they have not given any warranty, warranty was given by the op no.1 which is written in the Tax Invoice.  So, in the circumstances, case against op nos. 2 & 3 should be dismissed.

                                   Decision with reasons

On proper evaluation of the entire fact and circumstances and materials and particularly the written version of the op nos. 2 & 3 the Dell India Pvt. Ltd. and its service centre it is proved that op no.1 is not an authorized dealer of Dell India Pvt. Ltd. and that has not been denied by the op no.1.  Considering the invoice as filed by the complainant it is proved that warranty was given by the op no.1 himself but not by the manufacturer.  At the same time op no.1 has admitted that it was foreign manufactured.  But op no.1 has failed to produce any document to show that he is the dealer of selling such laptop of foreign origin.  So, it is clear that op no.2 & 3 have no liability and they have no way related with the said laptop and no services can be given by them in view of the fact that the op no.1 has admitted that this laptop is made at foreign countries and warranty can only be available in foreign countries not in India.

Further op no.1 M/s IT Arena has admitted that they are selling and repairing the same and it is further submitted that they failed to process and for which he wrote a letter to the dealer of Siliguri service centre about the defect but no reply was received by the op.  Then it is clear that op no.1 having no authority to sell foreign goods (computer) and there is no such paper to show by the op no.1 that he had his legal authority to sell such article in the market.  Then it is clear that op no.1 collected such laptop (foreign made) by adopting the some illegal method and selling the same when he is not the dealer in respect of such foreign made laptop.  Then question of warranty as noted it is found that warranty was given by M/s IT Arena.  But complainant has stated that after searching out defect he met the op no.1 but op no.1 showed the track towards to op no.3 and op no.3 after inspection reported the complainant that it is pirated laptop and op no.2 and 3 are not liable for that and no warranty was given by Dell India Pvt. Ltd. and for which op no.3 requested the complainant to go to op no.1 in this regard and truth is that op no.1 did nothing, though received the letter did not inform the complainant what complainant shall have to do in such a situation and at the same time op no.1 has admitted that he is willing to repair it.  Then it is proved that the service centre of Dell India Pvt. Ltd. foreign countries he has no authority.  They why op sold such foreign pirated laptop to the complainant as imported article and another factor is that how in respect of pirated article he charged VAT of Rs.1,538/-.  Another factor is that in the Tax Invoice it was not noted that it is manufactured in Europe, Middle East & Africa and there is no such number to the effect that he is a registered dealer of the said laptop company.  So, it is clear that this M/s IT Arena op no.1 has been selling pirated laptop after adopting unfair means and collecting from different sources and deceiving the customer in such a manner knowing fully well that when laptop would be found defective there was no scope on the part of the complainant to get any material from any service centres.  So, apparently, from the conduct of the op no.1 it is proved that the op is no doubt a fraud and he adopted unfair trade practice and has been selling pirated foreign goods i.e. laptop and in this case he has deceived the complainant after receiving of Rs.40,000/- and handed over a defective laptop of foreign made.  Knowing fully well that the customer shall not have to get any service from Dell India Pvt. Ltd., then it is proved that the entire conduct of the op no.1 as seller is no doubt an unfair trade practice and practically complainant has been suffering much and he has been suffering since after purchase of the said laptop on 04.01.2012 and no doubt he has been harassed and his engineering study has been suffered in many ways and disturbed for want of correct laptop and for which the complainant’s case is proved beyond any manner of doubt against the op no.1.

Accordingly the complaint succeeds against the op no.1 but same fails against the op nos. 2 & 3.

Hence, it is

                                      ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the op no.1 and same is dismissed without any cost against op nos.2 & 3.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay of Rs.40,000/- (price of the Laptop) and also compensation of Rs.25,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and for selling pirated foreign goods to the complainant (the foreign manufacturered) laptop having its no warranty within India. 

Op no.1 is also directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- to the State Consumer Welfare Fund for selling pirated goods and for adopting unfair trade practice to deceive the customer in such a manner and same shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to comply the order and to implement the order within one month from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay penal interest @ Rs.300/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of this order and even it is found he is reluctant in that case prosecution shall be started u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which he may be further imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- and even warrant of arrest may be issued against him.