Haryana

Karnal

CC/89/2017

Amarjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.89 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 02.03.2017

                                                         Date of decision:13.03.2018

 

Amarjeet son of Shri Bachna Ram resident of House no.50 Balmiki Colony Badi Market Model Town Karnal Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Reliance Retail Ltd. Reliance Digital through its owner Kunjpura Road Karnal.

2. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. in Gurgaon Sector-43, Delhi NCR.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present   Complainant in person.

                Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                Opposite Party no.2 exparte.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 31.12.2016 the complainant purchased a Laptop Model no.3542 4i7 Ram 8GB 1TB, 2GB Graphic Card from OP no.1 vide bill no.C#60213499, S#3729 for Rs.44562/- with the warranty of one year. The manufacturer of the said laptop was OP no.2.  The OP told that the laptop was having 2.2 processor but it was of 2.0 only and after two days it was noticed that the software of the laptop was not working properly because it was working similar to i2 while it was purchased as i7 and its machinery was very heavy. Complainant return the said laptop to the OP within a week because it was under warranty but till date OPs has not replaced the laptop and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. After 25 days OPs said the complainant to take his laptop and a visit would be done at his home but till date no visit was done by the OP and also not replaced the laptop. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; deficiency in service and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. On merits, it is submitted that the OP no.1 explained about different laptop available in Store and thereafter the complainant selected the said model and the OP no.1 explained about the features of the product as per literatures available with the product and supplied by the OP no.2 which was actually having 2.0 processor which the complainant is mistaking as 2.2 processor. However, the said laptop was equipped with feature to upgrade the Processor 2.0 to 3.1. Further, the features in the product were as per specifications provided by the OP no.2 and same is even declared on the Box product. It is further submitted that the same can be even verified from the invoice issued by the OP no.1 wherein complete specification of the product has been mentioned. It is further submitted that the OP no.2 is the manufacturer is completely responsible for any defect. It is the manufacturer who provide warranty on the product in question i.e. laptop. OP no.1 is neither the manufacture nor contributes to the processor of manufacturing at any stage. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 18.4.2017.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 5.7.2017.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 23.11.2017.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Admitted facts of the case are that on 31.12.2016 the complainant had purchased a Laptop Model no.3542 4i7 Ram 8GB 1TB, 2GB Graphic Card from OP no.1 vide bill no.C#60213499, S#3729 for Rs.44562/- and the warranty was of one year. The allegation of the complainant is that the OP told him that the laptop was having 2.2 Processor but it was having 2.0. After two days it was noticed that the software of the laptop was not working properly. Complainant made the complaint with the OPs in that regard and requested for replacement of laptop but OPs did not pay any heed to his request. On the other hand, OP no.1 contended that complainant himself choose the abovesaid model of the laptop and OP no.1 explained about the features of the said laptop. The said laptop was having 2.0 processor instead of 2.2. However, the said laptop was equipped with feature to upgrade the Processor 2.0 to 3.1.

8.             The allegation of the complainant that he purchased the laptop having 2.2 Processor, therefore to prove the same the onus was on the complainant. The complainant has not produced any evidence that he had purchased the laptop having 2.2 Processor. In the documents i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 it is not mentioned that the Laptop purchased was having 2.2 Processor. Without any evidence on the file it cannot be said that the complainant has purchased the laptop in question was having 2.2 Processor. Moreover, the complainant might has seen the laptop at the time of its purchase. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations levelled by him in his complaint against the OPs and we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.03.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)          (Anil Sharma) 

                          Member                Member