BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 82 of 2022
Date of Institution : 28.03.2022 Date of Decision : 18:10:2022
Akash Bansal son of late Sh. Rajiv Bansal R/o Ded Raj Mohalla near Hanuman Gali City-Jind-126102, State Haryana.
.….Complainant
Versus
- Rite Computer Systems Inc. Dell Exclusive Store # 6 Novelty Building Red Light Chowk, Near PNB Bank, G.T. Road, Panipat-132103 (Haryana).
- Dell India Private Limited, Divyasree Greens, Gr Floor, Sy Nos. 12/1 12/2a and 13/1a, Ghallaghatta village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore Ka, 560071 In, Karnataka.
……Opposite Parties/Respondents.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Amit Chahal, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. B.S. Deswal, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER:
In nutshell, facts leading to present complaint are that complainant purchased a Laptop Model- Dell 5567 i5 7th gen in a sum of Rs.58,200/- on 04.04.2017 vide Bill No.HTC/16/17-18 from dealer of OP company at Jind which was found defective, therefore, he complained and requested for refund of the amount but he was asked to purchase another laptop of a different series by giving extra amount of Rs.2000/- i.e. total consideration paid was Rs.60,200/- but this time, OP company concern informed that all laptops of this particular series were defective and thus a refund of Rs.60,200/- was made by Op company and OP concerned person persuaded the complainant to purchase another laptop of a different series Model INSPIRON 7560 15 7G by paying further Rs.8500/- which the complainant purchased from Op No.1 vide invoice no.366 dated 15.06.2017 by paying Rs.68,700/-. As per complainant, this laptop also started facing issues of Camera position, system was very slow, so he contacted the Ops but of no satisfaction since at one hand, complainant was intimated that it is a software issue whereas on the other hand, complainant was informed that it is a hardware issue and in this way, matter was lingered on and due to pandemic situation, OP’s were not contacted properly and ultimately complainant contacted the OP company on 25.01.2021 vide complaint no.102976151 and the concerned person stated that there was a hardware issue and he had to suffer loss of Rs.24,000/- on replacing parts but on 16.09.2021, service engineer of OP company came & re-installed OS and found that there was defect in display. Thereafter, Engineer again came on 12.10.2021 and replaced complete display panel & re-installed O.S. where he found that there was also a problem in hardware. So, Engineer of OP Company decided to replace the parts of laptop such as Hard Drive, Motherboard, Software, LCD and Accessory etc. but the said parts were not replaced. Complainant has further averred that OP company admitted that camera placement is not correct, took feedback and cored post production webcam but did not bother to replace the laptop in question nor provided refund rather they reduced the laptop warranty from their website which was earlier upto 27.09.2021 to 23.06.2018/26.06.2020 on its own and now saying that the laptop is not within warranty period. Complainant has further contended that being deprived of the proper services from OP, he has to suffer a lot mentally as well as physically. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking directions to the Ops to replace the product in question or to refund a sum of Rs.68,700/- i.e. cost of laptop in question and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation besides the cost of litigation etc. as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint.
2. Notice of complaint was issued to the Ops whereupon they appeared and tendered separate replies/written versions to the complaint.
OP No.1 in its written statement raised preliminary objections qua the complaint being false & frivolous, no cause of action, no maintainability and suppression of material facts etc.. On merits, OP No.1 has urged that complainant approached the answering OP on 15.06.2017 and he himself selected Dell Inspiron 7560-15, the laptop in question and purchased the same vide invoice no.366 dated 15.06.2017. After purchase of the said laptop, complainant never complained about the defect or working of the said product to the answering OP rather OP No.1 stated that grievance of complainant pertains to the OP no.2 company regarding design & manufacturing defect in the system and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint on this ground as well as complaint being time barred.
OP No.2 company tendered its reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits, OP No.2 has submitted that complainant purchased Dell Inspiron 5567 laptop on 04.04.2017 from Hi Tech Computers Store, Jind with his full satisfaction. After using the product for a month, complainant approached the seller that he wanted to return the system since he wants to have a laptop with higher specifications. The earlier laptop came with 1 TB storage and the 2nd laptop came with 2 TB storage. However, the seller Hi Tech Computers exchanged it with a different model but the complainant again returned the system despite the fact that there was no issue with the performance and complainant started comparing the laptop with other higher specification laptops available in the market at a higher price. So, again the laptop was exchanged but complainant was still not happy and to avoid further complications, a refund was issued vide cheque dated 13.06.2017 without any delay but the complainant again decided to buy Dell laptop of model INSPIRON 7560 bearing service tag # DPLLYF2 having much higher specifications in comparison to previous models, in the year of 2017 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 366 dated 15.06.2017 and after using the product for more than 3 ½ years, complainant for the first time in January 2021 reported that he does not like the positioning of the camera in this model whereupon he was explained that the system is working as designed and there is no hardware issue but he threatened to Dell Technical Support agent by stating that he knows how to get this one replaced. In the end, OP No.2 has submitted that the complaint is time barred being filed beyond the limitation period of two years. As such, the complaint is not maintainable being time barred as well as there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove his contention, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 and closed his evidence.
On the other side, counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence only two documents as Annexure OP1/1 & Annexure OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1 whereas counsel for OP No.2 Company tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sh. Rahul Tripathi authorized representative of Op No.2 as Annexure OPW2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP2/1 & OP2/2 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsels appearing for the OPs and evaluated the documents/evidence placed on file by both the sides.
5. At the very outset, the grievance of complainant is that the laptop of Op company purchased by him remained defective time and again. Further, the laptop was having some technical defect as its camera was not on the proper place and was creating hindrance while operating it and thus his studies was suffering a lot. But despite making various complaints and reminders to the OPs, they did not hear the genuine request of complainant. Complainant has further urged that the act & conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service resulting into mental and physical harassment as well as monetary loss to him. Hence, complainant has prayed for acceptance of complaint as requested in prayer para of the complaint.
On the contrary, learned counsel for OPs have argued that the complainant had purchased the product in question at his own sweet will and the alleged product is of much higher specifications. However, as and when complainant contacted the OPs, his grievance, if any, had been rectified. Even if, refund was also provided to the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.2 particularly urged that the warranty of product in question has expired on 26.06.2020 and thus the complaint is not maintainable being time barred. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and vehemently argued for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. Perusal of purchase bill (Annexure C-4) reveals that the complainant initially purchased the laptop from Hi-Tech Computers, Jind on 04.04.2017 in a sum of Rs.58,200/- but again purchased another laptop from the said dealer in a sum of Rs. 60,200/- on 24.05.2017 while replacing the old one by adding a sum of Rs.2000/- in the cost of previous laptop as clear from page no.2 of Annexure C-4. Further, the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,200/- was refunded to the complainant vide Annexure C-4 (page-4) by OP Company. Thereafter, as per Annexure C-4 (page 5), complainant purchased another laptop from OP No.1 (manufactured by OP No.2) in a sum of Rs.68,700/- on 15.06.2017 which was having warranty of the said product upto 27.09.2021 as clearly mentioned in the document Annexure C-9 (Page 3) wherefrom it transpires that the product in question was purchased by complainant on 15.06.2017 and its warranty was upto 27.09.2021 but prior to this, complainant complained about the defect in laptop to the Op No.2 company on 25.01.2021 and so on, till 28.09.2021 i.e. the date of issuance of legal notice to the OP company. As such, cause of action of complainant is recurring one since 25.01.2021 to till the date of filing of present complaint on 28.03.2022. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the present complaint is well within the limitation period of 2 years as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act and thus this issue is deciding accordingly.
7. Further, perusal of service report (Annexure C-6) having comments of on-site Engineer of OP Company, it reveals that the product in question is admittedly defective as per report of Engineer who says that ‘Engineer on-site check service tag system installation OS system, system Led white, patch update dts sangit and camera position defect, and further LCD display essuess replace the part system but camera line pakringsystem, OS very hang call dts Sanjath. ISSUE RESOLVED-NO’. Besides it, on perusal of document (Annexure C-9), it reveals that various service requests was made by complainant to OP Company to rectify the defects of the laptop in question wherefrom it is established that laptop in question was having manufacturing defect which was not cured by OP No.2 company till date rather lingered on under one pretext or the other which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
In view of the facts discussed above, it is very much clear that the laptop was having some manufacturing defect which was not rectified by the Ops despite various visits by their service engineer. Needless to mention here that the complainant was in actual need of the laptop therefore, he purchased the laptop from the OPs and its non-functioning repeatedly have ruined the studies of complainant which cannot be compensated solely in terms of money. As such, we hold that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which caused loss to his studies, besides mental and physical trauma. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.2 only with a direction to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of communication of this order:-
(i) To replace the Laptop in question with new one having same configuration/specifications or to refund a sum of Rs.68,700/- (Rs.Sixty eight thousand seven hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint to till date.
- And to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as compensation for harassment & mental agony etc.
- Also to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) to complainant on account of litigation charges including the Advocate’s fee etc.
Further the award in question/directions issued at (i) to (iii) above must be complied with by the OP No.2 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. However, complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on: (A.K. SARDANA) PRESIDENT
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer
(Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal) Member
DCDRC, Jind
