Punjab

Moga

CC/16/133

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme Infosys - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                       CC No. 133 of 2016

                                                                                       Instituted on: 08.08.2016

                                                                                       Decided on: 30.11.2016

 

Rajinder Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Sh. Des Raj, resident of house No.1551, Street no.2, Amritsar Road, Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Supreme Infosys, 5-A New Sodhi Nagar, Moga, through its Prop/Partner/Manager.

 

2.       Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Inner Ring Road, Bangalore - 560078, Karnatka, India.  

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Rajinder Kumar, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Ravinderpal Singh Rattian, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Navdeep Singh Gill, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.2.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Supreme Infosys, 5-A, New Sodhi Nagar, Moga, through its Prop/Partner/Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace the laptop Dell 3543 15, 8 GB; 1B 2GB 15.6 worth Rs.45,200/- or to refund the amount of Rs.45,200/- i.e. the price of the aforesaid laptop. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension, harassment to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased one laptop model Dell 3543 15, 8 GB; IB 2GB 15.6 worth Rs.45,200/- vide invoice no.RTL-01542 dated 11.07.2015 from opposite party no.1. At the time of delivery, the opposite party no.1 has given assurance that the said laptop is of a good quality and it will not give any problem/trouble. However, in case, if there is any defect occurs, they will replace the laptop. Opposite party no.1 has also given one year guarantee on the said laptop against any manufacturing defect whatsoever. Since the time of purchase of laptop, the same was not working properly and the same became headache for the complainant. The said laptop got switched off while working on it time and again. The complainant went to opposite party no.1 and lodged the complaint with it. The opposite party no.1 after retaining the laptop returned it to the complainant without removing the defect. The laptop is still not working and lying dead. There is some manufacturing defect in the said laptop. The complainant approached the office of opposite parties many times and requested to replace the abovesaid laptop, as there is some manufacturing defect, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to replace the same. Due to the acts of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficiency one. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written replies.

                   Opposite party no.1 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that answering opposite party is not liable for any manufacturing defect being the dealer and he is not the service provider of the concerned laptop. If there is any manufacturing defect in the laptop, then the manufacturer is liable for the same. Laptop in question comes with the onsite warranty of one year and the complainant can lodge the complaint regarding any defect in the unit to the directly on the company toll free number; that the complaint is bad due to the joinder of unnecessary parties; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party, as the laptop purchased by the complainant in the market and he had purchased the laptop after being satisfied with the condition of the Laptop and its performance. The answering opposite party had given proper attention towards his customer, when he approached him with any issue. On 16.06.2016 after about on year of purchase of Laptop complainant approached with answering opposite party with issue in the Laptop. At the time of sale of Laptop, the answering oppsotie party disclosed that all warranties as per manufactuerr's conditions and will be provided by their service centre. However, the complainant pressurized the answering opposite party to get it corrected from the manufacturer, but due to the goodwill gesture answering opposite party had taken the said laptop and they immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of company and the company had corrected the problem in laptop and after that the laptop was handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction. It has been further submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to submit any expert report from an appropriate lab regarding his claim. The complainant has filed the present complaint in order to tarnish the goodwill, reputation and image of answering opposite party. The complainant has failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in services on the part of answering opposite party. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint has been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.2 filed written reply submitting that when a complaint was initiated with opposite party no.2 regarding the computer, all issues were resolved and the system was returnee in a perfect working condition, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. Thereafter another complaint was raised by the complainant and the opposite party no.2 offered to provide the support services and resolve the issues complained of in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty. However, the complainant refused to avail the support services of opposite party no.2 and did not allow the service engineers of opposite party no.2 to inspect and resolve the issues, in accordance with the terms of the warranty and has instead been demanding a replacement which is contrary with the warranty offered by opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is still ready and willing to provide support services which are to be provided under the terms of warranty. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on behalf of opposite party no.2. That the complainant is not a consumer within the definition as provided under Section 2 (d) read with the Explanation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the computer in question was being used for commercial purpose at the office of the complainant and therefore, the complaint is out side the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the opposite party no.1 is merely a dealer of opposite party no.2 and is not authorized to provide any support services to the customers post the sale of the laptops. The support services under the warranty are to be provided by opposite party no.2 exclusively and it is mandatory for all the customers to contact opposite party no.2 directly as per the terms of the warranty in case they wish to avail the support services under warranty. It is further submitted that the complainant purchased a Dell Inspiron 3543 system, bearing service tag no.F5BPC32, from opposite party no.1 on 11.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.INR 45,200/-. The system in question was sold with a one year limited hardware warranty provided by opposite party no.2, which clearly states that such warranty extends to the hardware and nowhere does the warranty state that the system will be replaced. Furthermore, the onsite support services provided to the complainant is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty and the same shall only extend to hardware failures, if there are any, after a remote diagnosis by troubleshooting the system which is performed online by the technicians of opposite party no.2. As per the warranty, the complainant has to contact opposite party no.2 for any issues post the purchase and ager remoter troubleshooting, only in case when a hardware issue is determined by the technician of opposite party no.2, an onsite service is arranged for the replacement of any hardware component as the case may be at the convenience of the customer. Further submitted that the opposite party no.1 called opposite party no.2 for the first time on 17.06.2016 to inform opposite party no.2 that the complainant had deposited the system at the premises of opposite party no.1 due to the system not powering on. However, as a one-time goodwill measure, the opposite party no.2 deployed an engineer to visit the premises of opposite party no.1 to resolve the issue complained of by the complainant and the same was resolved by setting the components and the laptop was confirmed to be working properly and was returned in perfect condition in accordance with terms and conditions of the warranty. The services provided by opposite party no.2 were provided to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further submitted that on 07.08..2016, the complainants' son called opposite party no.2 with an alleged issue regarding the system shutting down and opposite party no.2 as per the terms of warranty offered to provide the support services to resolve the alleges issue for the same. However, the complainant refused the service of opposite party no.2 and refused to allow the opposite party no.2 to do any troubleshooting and insisted on a replacement. The complainant was informed that replacement is not possible as the same is a contravention to the warranty policy and also since the system has not been inspected by opposite party no.2, there could no occasion for the provision of a replacement as the same is only provided in case the issues complained of cannot be resolved by replacing or repairing the faulty parts as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant was adamant on getting a replacement without letting the engineers of opposite party no.2 from inspecting the system and therefore the complainant himself refused to avail the support services of opposite party no.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has been ready and willing to provide its services to the complainant at all times in tune with the warranty policy. The all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, Sh. Jagdeep Singh s/o Mahla Singh Prop. Supreme Infosys /opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. Whereas, opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Nitesh Ranjan, Authorized Representative Ex.OP-2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2/2 and Ex.OP-2/3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The complainant argued that he purchased a Laptop Make Dell 3543 15, 8 GB I B 2 GB 15.6 worth Rs.45,200/- from opposite party no.1, which was manufactured by opposite party no.2 against duly issued bill, copy of the same is Ex.C-2. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties gave assurance that the said laptop is of good quality and will not give any problem and if there will be any defect occur, they will replace the same. They also gave one year warranty on the product against any manufacturing defect. From the very beginning the laptop was not working properly. After few days from the purchase of laptop, the same was not working properly and switched off while working time and again. The complainant approached opposite parties, who retained the laptop and returned the same without removing the defect. The laptop is still not working and lying dead and there is some manufacturing defect in the laptop. The complainant approached opposite parties a number of times with a request to replace the laptop in question or to refund the price of the laptop, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. These acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Due to this acts of opposite parties complainant suffered mental tension and agony and financial loss.

9.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1. The present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party no.1. He admitted that the laptop in question was sold by opposite party no.1 to complainant and there was one year warranty on the said product, but the opposite party no.1 is not liable for any manufacturing defect in the product as he is only the dealer. The warranty of the product is to given by manufacturer through their service provider. The opposite party no.1 is neither manufacturer nor service provider. He is not liable for the warranty condition. However, they had given proper attention towards his customer when he approached him with any issue. The complainant approached to opposite party no.1 on 16.06.2016 with some issue in the laptop, as the warranty of the laptop is to be given by opposite party no.2, who is manufacturer and they are liable to repair the laptop. But due to the goodwill gesture, opposite party no.1 took the laptop and brought the matter to the notice of manufacturer company i.e. opposite party no.2 and they got repaired the laptop from opposite party no.2 and laptop was handed over to complainant to his satisfaction. After it, he never approached opposite party no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1.

10.              Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.2 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant purchased the laptop in question from opposite party no.1, which is manufactured by them and there was one year limited hardware warranty provided by them on the said laptop. As per warranty conditions, the laptop is to be repaired only not replaced. Onsite support services provided to the complainant is subject to terms and conditions of the warranty and the same shall only extent to hardware failure. As per warranty the complainant is to contact opposite party no.2 for any issue in the laptop, then in that case opposite party no.2 arranged onsite service and for replacement of any hardware component, as the convenience of complainant. The opposite party no.1 called opposite party no.2 on 17.06.2016  to inform that there is some problem of power on in the said laptop. The opposite party no.2 deployed engineer to visit and resolve the issue complained off by the complainant and the same was resolved by setting the components and the laptop was confirmed to be working properly and was returned to the complainant. Again on 07.08.2016, the complainant called opposite party no.2 that with the issue regarding the system shutting down and opposite party no.2 as per terms of the warranty offered to provide the support services to resolve the alleges issue for the same, but the complainant refused the service of opposite party no.2 and refused to allow the opposite party no.2 to do any troubleshooting and insisted on a replacement. As per terms and conditions the replacement is not possible under warranty policy. The replacement is only provided in case, the issues complained of cannot be resolved by replacing or repairing the faulty parts, but the complainant was adamant on getting the replacement without letting the engineers of opposite party no.2, which is not possible. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 has always been and is still ready and willing to provide its support services at all times as per warranty. The present complaint may be dismissed.

11.              It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased a laptop from opposite party no.1, which is manufactured by opposite party no.2 and there was a one year warranty against any manufacturing defect on the said laptop. During the warranty period, some problem occurred in the laptop and the complainant approached to opposite parties for getting remove the defect, but they failed to remove the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again approached opposite parties with the same problem, but they further failed to remove the defect from the product. Opposite party no.2, who is manufacturer of the product had given one year warranty on the product and is liable to remove all the defects from the product to the satisfaction of the customer. In the present case, admittedly there was defect in the laptop of the complainant and he approached to opposite parties for its repair time and again, but they failed to remove the defect to the satisfaction of the complainant. So, from the acts of the opposite parties, it is established that there is some manufacturing defect in the product, which cannot removed by repair.

12.              From the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against opposite party no.2. As such, opposite party no.2 is directed to replace the laptop of the complainant with new one of the same make and model. Further opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The present complaint against opposite party no.1 stands dismissed, as he is only the dealer and sold products as received by him from the manufacturer and supplier. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 30.11.2016.

 

                                                 (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                          Member                                     President