Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/241

M/S DELL INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT AKHILA - Opp.Party(s)

GOKUL R NAIR

14 Nov 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NUMBER 241/14

JUDGMENT DATED : 14.11.2014

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.323/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha order dated : 25.11.2013)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                             : MEMBER

 

M/s. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.,

Diyasree Greens, Ground Floor,

12/1, 12/2A, 13/IA,

Challangatta Village,                                                        APPELLANT

Varthur Hobli,

Bangalore South – 560071

(By Adv. Sri. Nithya. S)

 

V/s.

 

1. Smt. Akhila,

W/o. Ajith,

Ajaya Vilasom,

Kunnumm, Thakazhi

Now residing at Elanjickal

Near Star Jn., Muthukulam        

1. Sri. Ajith,

Elenjickal,                                                                RESPONDENTS

Near Star Junction,

Muthukulam

      3.  Sri. Prkash K.P.,

K.P. Systems, Computer

Sales and Service,

Near South Indian Bank,

Nangyakulangaraaa, Haripad,

Alappuzha - 690513

JUDGMENT

                                   

SRI.V.V.JOSE         : MEMBER

            This appeal is filed by the second opp.party in CC.No.323/12 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.

            2.        The case of the complainants is as follows. Complainants purchased a laptop computer machine from the first opp.party manufactured by the second opp.party. A key board and a mouse device were also purchased by them. Complainants were told that the machine has one year warranty period, which will start by on line registration. Complainants came to know that the warranty was expired when they tried to log on to register for warranty. Meanwhile they realized that the laptop is not accepting the command for normal and proper way to shut down the device. Therefore they have to make long press the mechanical switch to turn off the computer. The first opp.party evaded the complainant saying that they have no responsibility as the warranty is to be given by the manufacturer. The second opp.party also did not reacted, when contacted over phone. The key board supplied is also defective. According to the complainant the first opp.party has sold a used product and therefore defrauded the complainants. Hence this complaint is filed.

            3.        The first opp.party filed its version contending that the first complainant is not competent to represent the second complainant. He admitted the purchase of the laptop at the same time denied his responsibility and asserts that he is not responsible to provide warranty. Moreover, laptop was not produced before him, is unable to do anything. He also denied the defect of the keyboard as alleged in the complaint. According to him complaint is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed. The second opp.party remained absent though notice was served on them and they were set exparte.

            4.        The second complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 document was marked. The first opp.party was also examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. One witness was examined as RW2 for opp.party. The Forum Below found that the complaint is maintainable as the first complainant represented her husband and second complainant himself appeared before the Forum and gave evidence.

 

            5.        The first opp.party assured one year warranty for the laptop and it will start by on line registration. According to the complainant they came to know that the warranty was expired, when they tried to log on for warranty. The service centre of the second opp.party also refused to examine the machine since it has no warranty. As dealers, the first opp.party has no right to rectify the defects of the laptop and more over if done anything that will violate the warranty conditions. He produced a witness RW2 to prove that he purchased the laptop only on 11.07.2012 from Global links. The complainants purchased the laptop from the first opp.party, the dealer of the second opp.party on 25.07.2012, for which there was no warranty according to the complainants. It is the bounden duty of the first opp.party to satisfy the customer who purchased the laptop believing his assurance about warranty. According to the Forum below, even after filing the complaint, the first opp.party did not made any attempt to redress the grievance of the complainant. It is clear that the laptop was sold after the expiry of warranty period. That is why the attempt to log on was failed and consequently the service was also denied. This act of the first opp.party, to sell a product without disclosing the non warranty amounts to unfair trade practice and defect and deficiency in service. The complainant was made to believe that warranty will start by online registration. In the opinion of the Forum the first and second opp.parties are liable to compensate equally and allowed the complaint directing the opp.parties to replace the laptop with new warranty, on return of the laptop by the complainants. Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the Forum the second opp.party filed this appeal on various grounds. The main allegation in the appeal memorandum is that the order is against natural justice and it is wrong and contrary to law, facts and evidence Lower Forum did not considered the unawareness of the defected performance of laptop by the appellants. Complainants never contacted the appellants for confirming the warranty status. No evidence was adduced to prove that laptop was a used product.

            6.        Heard the appellant and respondents. The learned counsel of appellants filed a detailed argument note. He argued that the defects of the laptop was not proved and the same was not produced before the Forum. The complainant filed the complaint furnishing a wrong address of the appellant, that is why they were not able to appear before the Forum. The purchased lap top has got one year warrantee, but online registration is needed. The laptop was opened and demonstrated to the complainants by the dealer. This was not disputed anywhere. Complainants failed to adduce any evidence for registering the technical fault regarding the laptop to the appellant at their toll free number or at any service centre.

            7.        The only issue of the complainant is that they could not register the said laptop online to avail the warranty status. Instead they preferred the consumer complaint. They could have easily rectified the grievance by using the toll free number of the appellants. The complainants did not produced any documentary evidence or expert opinion to prove that the laptop was a used one. He submitted his willingness to repair the laptop even now. First opp.party / respondent no.3 argued that the complainants never registered any complaint regarding the laptop in their customer care. They are only dealers of the second opp.party. So unable to give warraanty.

            8.        The counsel of the complainants / respondents 1 & 2 resisted all the above arguments. They submitted that the purchased laptop was not having warranty, as they failed to log on online to register the availability of warranty. His grievance was not attended by the dealer, from where he purchased the laptop, because the period of warranty was elapsed by the time. He was not able to log on to the manufacturer to avail the status of warranty, as it was elapsed. The address of the manufacturer was collected from the customer care. The notice sent was also served on them.

            9.        We have carefully gone through the complaint, version, depositions, appeal memorandum and the order of the Lower Forum. The purchase of laptop, assurance of warranty, failing of online registration, elapsing of the warranty are all not disputed. The case of the complainants is that the warranty assured by the dealer / first opp.party was elapsed when they tried to log on to avail warranty. It was assured that one year warranty will be provided by the manufacturer, provided the purchaser should log on online to avail warranty. It seems to be true that  the laptop was sold without warranty and the same was elapsed earlier of the sale.

            10.      Though the appellant did not contested the case in the original side, no significant contentions are seen taken by them in appellate stage. They have no prayer that they should be given an opportunity to contest the case with solid evidence on their hands to refute the allegations made by the complainants, there is no convincing reasons forthcoming, clarifying the reason for refusal to log on for warranty registration by complainant on the date of purchase. They also failed to address their particular issue with any proof before us. They have not sought to mark any documents or provide opportunity to procure an expert opinion to establish any strong case in their favour. It is true that no specific plea has been taken by the complainant regarding the consequence arises due to non registration of warranty. Obviously, the order is passed long after the admitted date of purchase. In any way about sixteen months after the admitted date of purchase. But we are unconcern about these, as the manufacturer is not sincerely impressing us, on the real reason for non registration of warranty, Normally the warranty should commence from the date of sale and should be enforce for one year from the date of sale. Even though the complainant is not having an allegation in respect of the difficulties sustained by him for use due to non registration of warranty, we are unable to understand the reason for refusal to non register the warranty. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Lower forum from the arguments available before us. Consequently, the appeal fails and the order of Lower Forum stands confirmed.

 In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. The order of the Lower Forum is upheld and stands confirmed. The parties shall suffer their costs in the appeal.

 

Be/