Haryana

Karnal

343/2012

Subhash Sharma S/o Daulat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s J.C. Electricals., Dell India - Opp.Party(s)

Jaspal Singh

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.343 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.16.07.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 15.07.2015

 

Subhash Sharma son of Sh.Daulat Ram, resident of G-5, Ward No.6, Poultry Area, Nilokheri

                                                          ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

1. Bhimsen son of Sh.Radha Krishan, Proprietor of M/s J.C.Electricals, Shop No.7 and 8, Gol Market, Nilokheri.

2.DELL India through its Manager, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Opposite Central Park, Condominiums DLF City, Gurgaon, Haryana..                                           

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Jaspal Singh Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for OP No.1

                   OP No.2 ex parte.

ORDER:                     

 

                        The case of the complainant, in  brief , is that he purchased a Dell  note book  Model  No.1015 C.H.No.500 GB/15.6”  from Opposite party ( in short OP)  No.1 vide invoice No.10820  dated 16.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The OP No.1 told him that he was authorized to sell Dell note book manufactured/imported by Op No.2. The key board of the said note book was defective and keys were not working properly. He approached the OP no.1 and requested him to  get the said defect removed, but the OP no.1 told that with the  passage of time the keys would be working properly. In the mean time, he went abroad and returned in the last week of February, 2012. However, the said note book was  still having defect in the key  board. He approached the OP no.1 and gave the note book to OP No.1 in the last week of April, 2012, but no receipt was given by the OP no.1. He was told by the OP no.1 that the complaint was made to OP No.2 and engineer of the company would come to remove the defect.  After one week, he again approached the OP no.1, who told that defect could not be removed, therefore, the note book was sent to Chandigarh at the service centre of the DELL and he would be  informed as and when the same would be received. After some time the OP no.1 told that the original key board of the  note book was not available and the same was booked through a dealer at Ambala.  On 11.7.2012 when he approached the OP no.1 for return of the note book after repairs,  the OP No.1 could not give satisfactory reply. When he  lodged protest , the OP no.1 got enraged and misbehaved with him and told him that he could take away his note book and nothing could be done in the matter, as  it was the responsibility of the company to remove the defect in the  note book. Then be brought the note book back,  but the charger/adaptor,  which was given to the OP no.1 in working condition, was also not working. There was manufacturing defect  in the note book and it was the duty of the Ops to remove  the defect  during the warranty period or replace the same with a new one, if the defect could not be removed, but  they failed to do the needful.

 

2.                 Upon notice the OP no.1  put into appearance and filed written statement disputing claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint was not legally  tenable; that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the OP no.1 and that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts.

 

                    On merits, the factum of purchase of DELL note book (laptop)  by the complainant from the OP no.1 has not been disputed. It has been submitted that in the last week of  April, 2012, the complainant  came to the show room of OP No.1 and told that key pad of the note book was not working properly.  Although, the OP no.1  was merely  a retailer  of electronic products and was neither authorized service centre of the product manufactured by OP no.2 nor was  providing repairs/services  of the products sold by him, but in order to   maintain good customer relations, he inspected the note book. A visual inspection of the note book revealed that the complainant had been grossly negligent in handling the note book and because of  mishandling, water  or some liquid had  spilled over the key pad, which  caused improper functioning of the key board.  The OP no.1 had no qualification/experience to repair the note book, therefore, he asked the complainant to approach the authorized service centre of the OP no.2 or  consult a qualified service engineer, who can find the exact  cause of problem and can repair the same.

 

                   It has further been averred that OP no.1 explained his inability to help the complainant. There was no deficiency on the part of OP no.1 and the present complaint has been filed in order to prevail  upon the OP no.2 to repair the  note book  or get  repaired the same from  qualified person without charging any amount from the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been  specifically denied.

 

3.                OP no.2  refused to accept the service of the notice   sent through registered post, therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against OP No.2 vide order dated 8.10.2012

 

 

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of the bill Ex.C2.

                  

                   In the evidence of OP no.1, he  filed his affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of the bill Ex.R2.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The parties are not at dispute that the complainant had purchased one laptop/note book of DELL make, which is manufactured by OP no.2. It is also established from the pleadings and evidence of the parties that the complainant approached the OP no.1 for removal of the defect in the note book as the key pad of the same was not working properly. 

 

                   As per allegations of the complainant, the OP no.1 kept the note book with him for some time for getting the same repaired, on the other hand the OP no.1 submitted that he was neither authorized service provider nor had any technical knowledge to repair the note book, therefore, he had advised the complainant to approach OP no.2, who is manufacturer of the DELL note book,  for getting the defect removed.

 

7.                The Learned counsel for the OP no.1 put great thrust upon the contention that OP no.1 was just dealer of the DELL note book and he had sold the note book to the complainant. The OP No.1 was neither a service provider nor had any technical knowledge to repair such note books or electronic items sold by him. It was clarified  even on the bill that only the manufacturing company would be  responsible for the warranty and the OP no.1 would not be responsible  at all. Thus, the OP no.1 was not responsible for removing any defect in the note book sold by him to the complainant and as such there was no deficiency in services on his part ,therefore,  he is neither liable to remove the  defect in the   note book of the complainant nor liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant.

 

8.                A perusal of the copy of the bill Ex.C2 makes it quite clear that the OP no.1 has got printed on the bill that  he would not be responsible for any  warranty period and only the company would be responsible  for the warranty. It was also printed that service was to be provided by the company and not by the dealer.

 

9.                The Learned counsel for the complainant could not refer to any term or condition in respect of the  sale of note book, according to which the OP no.1, was responsible for the warranty  of the note book sold to him. Even, no law could be cited according to which dealer,   who is not service provider, is  liable for the warranty provided by the manufacturer.   No doubt, the complainant approached the OP no.1 for removal of the defect, but the OP no.1 was not liable for removal of any defect,  who is merely a dealer and therefore, no responsibility can be fastened upon him.

 

10.               The fact that the complainant had approached the Op No.1 for removal of the defect in the key pad of the note book makes it clear that defect in the key pad had occurred during the warranty period of one year. No doubt, the  complainant should have approached the service provider of OPno.2 or OP no.2 directly for removal of the defect in the key pad of the note book, but he cannot not  be denied right to get the defect removed during the warranty period, merely for this reason, because an ordinary man  who is not acquainted with the procedure of getting    repaired electronic items purchased from a dealer, would  certainly approach the dealer first for removal of the defect instead of manufacturer or service provider. If, no service provider of the manufacturer is available  at the local place where he is residing or he is not able to  know about the service provider, then it  could be very difficult for him to approach the manufacturer for removal of the defect. It is pertinent to note that neither in the bill, it has been mentioned as to who was service provider at Karnal  for providing services in respect of the goods manufactured by Op no.2 nor  this fact was disclosed by the OP no.1 to the complainant or in his written statement or evidence. The  OP No.2 did not bother to appear in pursuance to the notice sent through registered post, rather refused to accept the same.  In such a situation, the interest of justice demands that manufacturer, cannot escape from liability of repairing the defect in the note book of the complainant as  the defect had occurred during the warranty period. Under such circumstances, it can very well be considered that there was deficiency in services on the part of OP No.2.

 

11.               Therefore, as a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to repair the note book of the complainant to his satisfaction. However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances, the complainant cannot be granted any compensation for mental agony and pain as well as litigation expenses, as he had never approached OP no.2 for removal of defect in the note book (Laptop) purchased by him, therefore, his prayer in this regard is declined.  The OP No.2 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Jaspal Singh Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Gupta Advocate for OP No.1

                   OP No.2 ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.07.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.