Haryana

StateCommission

A/436/2015

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV NARANG AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       436 of 2015

Date of Institution:       12.05.2015

Date of Decision :        12.10.2015

 

DELL International Services India Private Limited, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Greens, Koramangala Inner, Ring Road, Domlur Post, Bangalore-560071, Karnataka.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Rajiv Narang, Resident of H.No.714E/18, Shastri Nagar, Near Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Gali No.4, Rohtak, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Global computers Ground Floor Naraina Complex, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:               Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Khera, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of DELL International Services India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2, is directed against the order dated January 22^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, in Consumer Complaint No.503 of 2013.

2.      Rajiv Narang-complainant-respondent, purchased a new Delll Inspiron N5110 laptop from Global Computer-Opposite Party No.1, for Rs.36,000/- vide invoice No.5263 on February 14^th, 2013. After six months of its purchase, the complainant noticed some problem in the laptop. He approached the opposite parties on October 9^th, 2013, but they refused to repair or replace the laptop with the plea that the same was out of warranty. Hence, complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing their respective replies. The opposite party No.1 in its reply denied any manufacturing defect in the laptop. However, it was admitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 regarding warranty shown on internet at company website which was different on the date of purchase. The Company had given privilege to the retailer/dealer regarding period of warranty due to reason that product of the company might not be sold immediately by dealer after purchase from the company.  The warranty of the product had been extended by the opposite party No.1. It was stated that the defect might be due to mishandling and use of un-recommended software in the laptop. The complainant of his own opted for 4 GB RAM instead of 2 GB RAM in the laptop at the time of purchase. The opposite party No.1 was only the retailer and the warranty was provided by the Company Care Centre as covered under warranty period.  

4.      The opposite party No.2 –appellant, in its reply stated that the laptop was sold by the opposite party No.2 to its distributor “Softech Computers” dated 27.01.2012 and the same was in return sold to the local dealer, that is, opposite party No.1. As per purchase invoice it revealed that the system was purchased through local dealer namely ‘Global Computers’ located at Rohtak. The complainant had complained about the defects in the speakers and the same were replaced with new one. On October 9^th, 2013 the complainant complained to the opposite party No.2 about the slow performance of the system. The complainant was advised to contact the opposite party No.1. On 25^th October, 2013 one Rohit Mandal, a representative of the complainant, had contacted the opposite party No.2/appellant intimating that the system had fallen from the bag and damaged. The opposite party No.2/appellant out of goodwill gesture still rectified the defect in the system and extended the warranty. The system was sold with 320 GB Hard Drive and 3 GB memory. As the upgraded part was not of Dell, therefore, the opposite party No.2  was not liable for the same. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“……….it is directed that the opposite party No.2 shall refund the price of system/laptop i.e. Rs.36000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.12.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousands and two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and in turn the complainant shall hand over the laptop in question to the opposite party. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

6.      It is admitted case of the parties that the laptop was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on February 14^th, 2013 for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. It is also not in dispute that on 25^th October, 2013 one Rohit Mandal, a representative of the complainant, had contacted the opposite party No.2/appellant intimating that the system had fallen from the bag and damaged. The opposite party No.2/appellant out of goodwill gesture still rectified the defect in the system and extended the warranty.

7.      The opposite party No.1 in para 4 of the written reply has pleaded that the complainant had adopted of his own 4 GB RAM instead of 2 GB RAM at the time of its purchase and accordingly, the opposite party No.1  had upgraded the RAM from 2 GB to 4 GB. It is specific plea of opposite party No.2 that the upgraded part was not of Dell and therefore it was not covered under the warranty.

8.      By upgrading system by opposite party No.1, either of his own or at instance of complainant, but in any case not with consent or approval of manufacturer, that is, opposite party No.2/appellant, thus, the manufacturer’s warranty stood violated, because up gradation would disturb the basic configuration of the system. So, the opposite party No.2/appellant could not be blamed for it. Consequently, no liability could be fastened upon opposite party No.2/appellant. 

9.      In view of the above, the liability with respect to the defects in the system was of the opposite party No.1 and not of the opposite party No.2. The District Forum fell in error in directing the appellant-opposite party No.2 to refund the price of the system/laptop to the complainant instead of the opposite party No.1.  Hence, the impugned order is modified directing the opposite party No.1 to comply the order of the District Forum on account of its deficiency in service. The appellant-opposite party No.2 is not liable to compensate the complainant. And therefore by setting aside the direction issued by the District Forum against the appellant/opposite party No.2, the complaint against it (opposite party No.2) stands dismissed. The liability of opposite party No.1-M/s Global Computers only.

10.    The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.  

 

 

Announced 12.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL