Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/797/2016

Deepak Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Digital Retail Limited through its Director, Shop No. 247, 2nd Floor, Industrial Business P - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	797/2016
Date of Institution	:	21.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.06.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Deepak Aggarwal r/o H.No.836, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

        ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd., through its Director, Shop No.247, 2^nd Floor, Industrial Business Park, Phase-I, (Elante Mall), Chandigarh -160002.
2. Accel Frontline through its Director/Partner/Proprietor SCO No.644, 2^nd Floor, Keshoram Complex, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.
3. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd, (Importer) through its Director 5^th Floor, Block-B, Godrej I.T. Park, Pirojshanagar-02 Godrej Business District Vixhroll (W), Mumbai-400079.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

                   Sh.Rajat, Proxy Adv. for Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Adv. for OP No.1

                   None for OP No.2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the complainant purchased a Hard Disk i.e. Seagate from OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 14.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.4,499/-, having three years warranty. He was assured that free service was to be provided throughout India within the warranty period.   He averred that soon after its purchase, when the Seagate ITB in question connected in the USB port of the computers, the same was not readable and, therefore, he approached OP No.1 who after checking it told him that the same was to be replaced with a new one through OP No.2. However, OP No.2 had refused to replace/repair the same on the ground that someone tried to open it and thus, the same did not fall within the warranty period. It has further been averred that he accompanied with his friend-Pawan Kumar brought to the notice of OP No.2 that the Hard Disk in question was retained by OP No.1 only for about 20 minutes and the same was never handed to any other person.  It has further been averred that OP No.2 refused to open the job card on the ground that the same was previously appears to have been opened. Finally, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs with a request to refund its price, but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.             In its written statement, OP No.1 has not denied the factum of purchase of the hard disk having warranty of three years. It has been pleaded that on being approached, the complainant was advised to approach OP No.2, who being an authorized service center, is responsible to remove the alleged defect.  It has further been pleaded that the hard disk could be replaced from the Seagate Service Centre only and OP No.1 has no role to play.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             In its written statement OP No.2 has admitted the factual matrix of the case. However it has been pleaded that being the authorized center, they are authorized to open the seal of warranty and tampering happens only when the product under warranty is opened by unauthorized personnel such as the complainant’s case.  It has further been pleaded that it is clear case of mishandling.  It has further been pleaded that it needs to be proved that there is some inherent manufacturing defect. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

2.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.10.2016.
3.         On 24.05.2017 none appeared on behalf of OP-2 when the case was fixed for arguments.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose the complaint under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of OP No.2.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         After giving our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter.  The only plea of OP No.2 is that the hard disk in question appeared to have been opened by someone and as such the same is not covered under the warranty terms. However, we are unable to accept this argument of OP No.2 for the simple reason that there is no need for the complainant to open the hard disk in question himself within the short span of four months of its purchase or to get it repaired from any outside agency especially when the same is covered under the warranty of three years and as such it appears that OP No.2 took this plea just to evade its contractual liability under the warranty period.  Non-repairing of the hard disk in question within the warranty period itself sufficient to conclude that there is some major defect in it. We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to repair the product in question because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for him. 
6.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the OPs are directed to refund the price of the hard disk in question i.e. Rs.4,499/- to the complainant with lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded amounts to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09.06.2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER