Order-14.

Date-17/07/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP1 is the authorized seller of OP2 and OP2 is the manufacturing and marketing of their product line.

          On 10-04-2012 complainant purchased one Desk Top Computer set from OP1 vide retail invoice no.SIPL/GC/12-13/00224 of which guarantee of monitor was for 3 years but the same developed a defect in around September, 2014.  So, he approached the OP1 and OP1 advised him to make call to OP2.  Accordingly complainant made call to OP2 on 17-10-2014 but did not get any response from the OP2.  Then the complainant reported the matter to CA&FBP, Kolkata Central Region for mediation of the dispute but they failed when as per the direction of the CA&FBP complainant was compelled to file this complaint for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for unfair practice and prayed for redressal.

          On the contrary, OP Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. by filing written statement has submitted that no doubt complainant on 10-04-2012 purchased a Dell manufactured monitor for a sum of Rs.6,200/- along with other components of other brand from OP1 but after that complainant used the said monitor for a period of two years and 6 months with complete satisfaction and without any intervention.  Thereafter, approached the OP 2 at first time on 17-04-2014 with the allegation that monitor was not working since purchase and till 17-10-2014 that monitor worked properly and so, there is no manufacturing defect in the said monitor.  So, the present complaint should be dismissed and as per warranty clause complainant is to carry out repairs free of cost while the product is under warranty, and in case of 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.

          As per complaint complainant contacted OP1 for the first time on 17-10-2014 reported issues of vertical lines on the monitor.  The technicians of the OP2 asked the complainant to provide the copy of invoice to verify the purchase details and to resolve the issue as per the warranty clause but same was not provided by the complainant.  so, the issued would not be resolved.

          It is further submitted that OP1 contacted to OP2 on behalf of the complainant on 27-01-2018 and reported the earlier issue with the monitor and also provided the copy of invoice and after verification on 29-01-2015 monitor despatched was preceded as per the warranty clause which was delivered to the complainant on 02-02-2015. 

Again OP1 contacted with the OP2 on behalf of the of the complainant on 09-02-2015 and informed that the complainant received the monitor but it was damaged and after the verification on 10-02-2015 another monitor was preceded but the same was cancelled as the complainant refused to accept the monitor and complainant informed that he was assured by the OP1 that he would be provided a brand new monitor with a fresh warranty of three years.  In fact, in this case complainant has failed to show that monitor set supplied by the OPs have any manufacturing defects.  There is no evidence to show that prior to first repairing after using the monitor for 2½ years there was any defect.  So, under any circumstances, complainant is not entitled to get any benefit and, in fact, complainant wants a new monitor which is not at all entertainable as per warranty clause and at the same time after using the monitor for 2½ years continuously without any disruption.  No doubt there was some sort of wear and tear problem and that was cured and another monitor was given to the complainant but complainant was refused to get it so the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

After careful study of the complaint and the written version that as per judgment passed by I (2006) CPJ 92 NC it is settled principle of law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if it can be repaired.  At the same time in the present case it is proved that complainant has used the said monitor for a period of more than two years and 6 months with complete satisfaction and there was no manufacturing defect.  Invariably for which the said monitor acted continuously undisrupted service for two years and six months and there is no prove that there is any manufacturing defect.  Another fact is that the OP after reporting all the problem another monitor was handed over to the complainant on the ground that was refused by the complainant and his claim was that he wanted a new monitor with fresh warranty.  After considering the entire materials on record and further considering the entire facts and circumstances and the ruling we are convinced to hold that under any circumstances, complainant is not entitled to get any new monitor and we are confirmed that there was no manufacturing defect in respect of the said monitor when complainant used the same for 2½ years out of 3 years warranty without any disruption.

          Another factor is that OP replaced one monitor with some wear and tear problem it found but complainant refused to accept it.  No doubt it is bad attitude on the part of the complainant as a consumer but we have gathered that at the time of hearing the argument of both the parties that the entire allegation of the complainant against the OPs is baseless and without any foundation when OP handed over a repaired set of another monitor for use then invariably OP during warranty period discharged their duties and invariably complainant ought to have get such benefit if he would take it for use but in the present case it is proved that it is an attempt on the part of the complainant for getting a new monitor and it is common practice of the complainant in most of the cases in case of frig, TV, computer etc. to file a case at the fag end of the warranty period and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that at best OP may be directed to hand over a repaired set of monitor so that he may use it at least for some one year and invariably complainant shall have to receive it and no other relief can be granted in favour of the complainant and no question of allowing any cost when the complainant’s conduct is very doubtful in all respect and on the further ground OP supplied a repaired monitor to the complainant which would invariably serve the purpose of the complainant.

In the result, the final order is passed disposing of the complaint on the basis of the above findings.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP2 without any cost and same is allowed ex parte against the OP1 without any cost.

          Complainant to receive repaired set as would be supplied by the OP1 and OP2 who are directed to supply a repaired set to the complainant within one month from the date of this order or on and from the date of appearance of the complainant to receive the same and invariably OP2 shall have to take such step so that the said repaired computer may run for another one year but in respect of repaired monitor complainant shall not be able to bring any complaint before the Forum but OP2 shall render all such sort of service so that the set may work for another one year.  If the order shall not be complied by the O.P. penalty may be imposed against them.