CC No.1590/2015

Filed on:05.09.2015

Disposed on:22.10.2016.

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1590/2015

PRESENT:

     Sri. RAMAKRISHNA H.S B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

  Sri. BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI B.A., LL.B

            MEMBER

     Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

              MEMBER

                                       V/S

ORDER

BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA H.S., PRESIDENT

1.      This is a complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to replacement of the product or refund of the amount of Rs.42,239/-, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and other reliefs.

2.      In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 22.07.2015 the Complainant purchased “Dell Inspiron 3000” series Laptop worth of Rs.42,239/- at Reliance Digital, HSR Layout, Bangalore.  At that time, the Sales person just opened it and asked her to create her user name and password and he didn’t check anything.  On 29.07.2015, the Complainant has found one USB port is not working.  On 01.08.2015, the Complainant visited the Reliance Digital Store and informed Laptop USB port is not working and it is a Software issue, the worker of the Reliance Digital Store request to wait for 25 minutes and he will reinstall the OS and fix it.  But some other worker told the Complainant that it is not a software issue and it is hardware issue.  The Complainant requested if it is hardware issue he wants to replacement.  For that reason, he is saying that take “DISPLAY PIECE”.  But the Complainant not agreed for that.  Then, the person will informed take up to the Service Center.  The Complainant wrote a complaint in complaint board.in on 02.08.2015.  The Complainant over phone contacted the Reliance Customer Care and informed the problem.  They assured the Complainant to solve her problem.  The Reliance Customer Care people with contact the Complainant within 24 hours. On 03.08.2015, the Complainant waited for the call from Reliance Customer Care.  Since, she did not receive any call from the Reliance Customer Care through the Showroom people, the Complainant confirmed that the Manager is on leave.  Once, he comes back only he will look after the problem and then the Customer Care people asked for the alternate person and took up the call and he told to the Customer Care people to give them and he will call him after one hour.  Since, he did not contact the Complainant in the second time, they told her they will look after the problem.  On 04.08.2015, the Complainant received call from Reliance Head Office, Mumbai and heard about the problem and again confirmed the call to the Manager and finally told to look after the issue.  Or else they have informed the Complainant to get the DOI Certificate so that they can solve the issue.  For the same the Complainant called to the Dell Customer Care and they have told that DOI Certificate will be issued to only the Retailers and not to the Customers.   When the Complainant called to the Dell Customer Support and he has trouble shoot which took around for 2 hours and finally he has told that it is not working and needs replacement.   On 5^th August 2015, the Complainant visited the Reliance Digital to give the Laptop, at that time it clearly informed that she will not accept any the same piece.  The Complainant requested to give replacement.  The Complainant was informed that they will see the best solution.  On 10.08.2015, the Reliance Digital people called the Complainant and told that her Laptop has some connection problem which has been repaired, come and take it and she told them not going to take it.  On the same day, the Complainant spoken to the Customer Care people and registered a complaint.  On 11.08.2015, this complaint has been closed without solution and 13.08.2015 the Complainant again spoken to the Customer Care.  They have told the Complainant they will not give replacement.   Hence, this complaint.

3.      In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version. The Opposite Party No.1 in their version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable in law or facts against the OP No.1 and liable to be dismissed.  The allegations made in the complaint are false, baseless and misconceived.  The Opposite Party No.1 in retail sale of electronic goods and home appliances.  The Opposite Party No.2 is a well known manufacturer and marketer of “Dell” products, including but not limited to Laptops and the Opposite Party No.1 is one of the Dealers of the Opposite Party No.2, duly authorized to sell the products, manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2.  As per agreement between Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.1 and in accordance with the prevailing trade practice, the Opposite Party No.2 is responsible to provide all after sale services in relation to the products manufactured and marketed by it.  In order to provide the required after sale services to its customers, the Opposite Party No.2 has set up its service centers in various cities of India including Bangalore.  The Opposite Party No.2 provides guidelines to its customers regarding product details, after sale services, list of service centers and contact details of customer care centers.  The Opposite Party No.2 vide its warranty, undertakes to service its products and rectify the manufacturing defects, if any, in the products sold to the retail customers subject to the warranty conditions.  There is no delay, negligence or deficiency in service attributed to this Opposite Party No.1 with regard to the alleged defects in the Laptop, said to have been purchased by the Complainant from this Opposite Party No.1.  The problems allegedly experience by the Complainant with Laptop, as per the aforesaid user manual was to be addressed to the Opposite Party  No.2 and when the Complainant raised a complaint regarding to the Opposite Party No.1, though not obligated, as a good gesture and with the customer care as paramount in its mind, took the Laptop and sent it to the Authorized Service Centre  of the Opposite Party No.2 and got the minor complaint raised by the Complainant rectified and promptly informed the Complainant to come and take delivery of the repaired free Laptop.  However, for reasons best known, this Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant refused to take delivery of the Laptop in question.  In this regard, the Opposite Party has sent a letter on 13.10.2015 to the Complainant by registered Post and despite the same, the Complainant and did not turn up to take back the Laptop in working condition lying with the Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant has not placed any materials before this Hon’ble Forum to show that the Laptop allegedly purchased by her from this Opposite Party No.1 is indeed suffered from manufacturing defective at the time of its purchase and has not initiated any steps under Sec.13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.  In the absence of any material to prove the manufacturing defect in the said Laptop produced by the Complainant, even as on the date of filing of the complaint, this complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No.1 and is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Opposite Party No.2 in their version pleaded that the Complainant had purchased “Dell Inspiron 3000” bearing system Tag Number #971KF32 on July 22, 2015 for a sum of Rs.42,239/- from Opposite Party No.1, after having full satisfaction with the said Laptop was originally sold by the Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1 on March 23, 2015.  The Opposite Party No.2 is not aware about the conversation between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.  There is neither any deficiency of service nor any manufacturing defect in the Laptop in question.  As such, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  The product in question carries a warranty for a period of one year.  Under the Warranty Clause, the company is to carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty, and in case the warranty of the product is expired or warranty clauses are violated, then the company will repair the product on chargeable basis paid by the Consumer.  On 29.07.2015 the Complainant found that the USB Port was not working however it was not reported to the Opposite Party No.2 and the same was reported to the Opposite Party No.1 who is not authorized to carry out any warranty service for the said system.    If there is any problem with the system then the same is to be reported to Opposite Party No.2 directly for the solution as per the warranty policy.  The Complainant approached to the Opposite Party No.2 for the first time on August 04, 2015 and requested for DOA Certificate.  The system is declared DOA in a condition when the system is found completely dead out of box, however as per the Complainant the system was unpacked at the Reliance Showroom and testing demo on system was provided to the Complainant which clearly proves that the system was functional.   To resolve the said issued the representative of the Opposite Party No.2 contacted to the Complainant and offered support and helped Complainant to find out the solution, therefore the representative requested to have a onsite Engineer visit to get the system checked physically but the Complainant refused the same and adamantly demanded replacement with a new system which was denied by the representative as per the warranty policy.  The Opposite Party No.2 again contacted the Complainant on August 08, 2015 and requested the Complainant to have an onsite service but the Complainant refused and replied that she had sent back the system to Opposite Party No.1 and she need not to be contacted further.  The system was brought to the Authorized Service Center of the Opposite Party No.2 by the Opposite Party No.1 and the issue of USB Port was immediately resolved without replacing any of the originally installed hardware components  on the said system and was returned back to Opposite Party No.1 immediately hand to hand.  The Opposite Party No.2 contacted the Complainant and informed the Complainant that the issue of USB Port is resolved without replacing any originally installed hardware components and the system is still confirmed working properly.  The Complainant replied that she does not have any grievance against Dell as Dell has always offered support and was willing to have Engineer deployed to resolve the issue, however she had filed the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.  The present complaint is liable to be dismissed, on the ground that there is prima facie no case against the Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party No.2 has not violated any terms or conditions of their warranty policy.  The Opposite Party No.2 has provided their services without any delay or negligence.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The Complainant, Keerthi Hima Bindu has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, one Sri.Bharvaga Ramadurgam, the Store Manager has been filed his affidavit. On behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, one Sri.Nitesh Ranjan, the Authorized Representative has been filed his affidavit.  Heard, the arguments of both parties.  

6.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

7.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1) :- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

8.     POINT NO. 1:-    On perusal of the complaint and versions filed by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, it is not in dispute that the Complainant on 22.07.2015 purchased “Dell Inspiron 3000” series Laptop bearing system Tag Number #971KF32 for a sum of Rs.42,239/- from Opposite Party No.1.  Further in support of this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and also produced the Cash Memo issued by the Opposite Party No.1.  By looking into this cash Memo, it is clear that on 22.07.2015 the Complainant purchased “Dell Inspiron Laptop” bearing Tag number #971KF32 for a sum of Rs.42,239/-. 

9. It is the case of the Complainant that on 29.07.2015, the Complainant noticed the “Dell Inspiron 3000” series Laptop purchased by her one of the UPS Port is not working and on 01.08.2015 she took the system to the Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 initially informed her it is a software issue and some other worker of the Opposite Party No.1 informed that it is hardware issue.  Then she requested for replacement of the system. To substantiate this, the Complainant in her sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the copy of the Mail dt.04.08.2015.  By looking into this mail is addressed to the Complainant Keerthi by the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2.  In this mail it clearly informed that the right side USB Port is faulty and it required replacing the daughter/IO board to fix the issue and please let her know your thought.  But to this mail, the Complainant has not given any reply.  On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they rectified the defect of the Laptop of the Complainant and requested her to take back the same for the Complainant refused to take back the system.  In support of this, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, one Mr.Bharvaga Ramadurgam filed his affidavit and his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and also to substantiate this, he had produced registered letter addressed to the Complainant dt.13.10.2015.   In that letter, it is clearly mentioned that the Complainant on 05.08.2015 handed over the defective Laptop to the Service Centre of the Opposite Party No.2 and in the Service Centre of the Opposite Party No.2 was rectified the defect and returned to them on 05.08.2015 now it is good working condition Laptop is ready to take back and request the Complainant to take back the same.  In spite of issuing the letter, the Complainant has not taken back the rectified Laptop.  This fact is also supported by the Opposite Party No.2.  In their version, it clearly pleaded that the defective Laptop System brought to the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2 by Opposite Party No.1 and the issue of USB Port was immediately resolved without replacing any of the originally installed hardware components on the said system and was returned back to the Opposite Party No.1.   So from this evidence, on record it clearly goes to show that undoughtedly the system i.e., Laptop “Dell Inspiron 3000”  which was purchased by the Complainant on 22.07.2015 from the Opposite Party No.1 there is a some defect.  For that reason, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 immediately the Opposite Party No.1 through the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2 rectified the mistake and requested the Complainant to take back the same, in spite of that the Complainant reluctant takes back the same.  On the other hand, she demanded for replacement of the new system.  This fact is further clear that as looking into the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.2.  In the version, the Opposite Party No.2 had taken defence that the Complainant approached to the Opposite Party No.2 for the first time on 04.08.2015 and requested for DOA Certificate.  The system is declared DOA in a condition when the system is found completely dead out of box, however as per the Complainant the system was unpacked at the Reliance Showroom and Demo on system was provided to the Complainant which clearly proves that the system was functional.   Even this fact is also appears to be proved as looking into the averments made in the complaint itself.  Even according to the Complainant, the system was purchased on 22.07.2015 and the Complainant noticed the defect in the system on 29.07.2015 i.e., after a period of one week.  So from 22.07.2015  to 29.07.2015 there was no defect in the system which was purchased by the Complainant.  Thereby, the Opposite Party No.2 has rightly rejected to issue DOA Certificate. 

10. Now the Complainant except producing that mail sent by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant. The Complainant has not placed any evidence to show that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are also absolutely there is no evidence to show that there is a manufactured defect in the “Dell Inspiron 3000” Laptop which was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1.  Thereby, the Complainant failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service by the Opposite No.1 & 2.    Hence, this point is held in the negative. 

11. POINT NO.2:- Hence, we proceed to pass the following.      

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 22^nd day of October 2016).

     MEMBER                      MEMBER              PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.K.Keerthi Hima Bindu, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Duplicate copy of Cash Memo-Retail Invoice
2. Mail Correspondence dt.04.08.2015
3. R Net Tracking

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Bharvaga Ramadurgam, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 filed by way of affidavit.

2. Sri.Nitesh Ranjan, on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 filed by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties:

1. Letter dt.13.10.2015 to the Complainant
2. Repair Job Sheet
3. Mail dt.16.09.2015
4. Tax Invoice dt.21.09.2015