1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a DELL Vostro 2520, Core 13 3rd Gen/2GB/500/14”/DOS laptop computer from OP.1 vide Invoice No. JC/RI/0910/13-14 dt.03.03.2014 for Rs.31, 800/- but the OP.1 did not issue warranty card during purchase. It is submitted that within couple of months, the computer started giving defects in its Keyboard and it was seen that some parts of laptop body were fitted loose. On approach to OP.1, he rectified the defects but after some days the defects returned besides some new problems such as Pen Drive Slot problem, set sleep mode while using dongle, Wi Fi and Blue Tooth driver problem. The OP.1 examined the set and tried to rectify the same but expressed its inability to rectify and assured that the Company people will come and attend the defects. On demand of warranty card, the OP.1 stated that the set is well warranted and he is responsible for rectification of defects but in spite of assurances from different customer care people, the problems remained unattended. Thus alleging defective goods and deficiency in service, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the laptop with a new one of same brand and model and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged laptop to the complainant on credit basis for Rs.31, 800/- and after payment the complainant is yet to pay Rs.50/- to the OP.1. It is contended that the Company provides warranty card on sale and warranty coverage starts from the date of actual invoice. As the complainant has not paid the sale consideration in full, he cannot be treated as a consumer under C. P. Act. The OP further contended that the defects in the laptop is not within its knowledge and the complainant has not made any complaint at any point of time but on good faith the warranty was extended till 20.4.2015 by OP.2. Thus denying all other allegations of the complainant, and denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of Laptop by OP.1 to the complainant on 03.03.14 which carries warranty for one year and if there is any problem in the system then customer is to contact to the manufacturer but in this case the complainant has never approached the manufacturer regarding defects in the system. It is contended that the OP.2 is not aware about the conversation between the complainant and OP.1 and when the complainant contacted the OP.2 on 27.10.2014, it was seen that the system is out of warranty and the complainant was intimated to contact OP.1 to get the warranty update. It is also submitted that as per warranty terms and conditions if there is an issue with the system, the complainant has to approach OP.2 directly to get the issue resolved and the OP.2 is still ready to resolve the issue as per warranty if the complainant so desires. Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Ops have filed affidavits in support of their cases also. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case purchase of Dell Vostro 2520 laptop by the complainant from OP.1 on 03.03.2014 for Rs.31, 800/- is an admitted fact. The complainant alleges that within a couple of months of its purchase, he found some parts of laptop body loose fitted and on approach the OP.1 removed the defects. Again after some days when the same problems returned, the OP.1 assured that he will book a complaint and service Engineer will attend the defects but in vain. After few days the complainant also found some other defects in the system and when approached, the OP.1 assured that the Company people will come and attend the defects. It is further alleged that no warranty card is supplied to the complainant but the OP.1 assured that he is responsible for rectification of defects.
6. The OP.1 stated in his counter that he sold the laptop to the complainant on credit basis for Rs.31, 800/- and after payments, a sum of Rs.50/- is still outstanding against the said credit purchase and hence the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops to avail all benefits. This issue of OP.1 is to be decided at the first instance before going into the other merits of this case.
7. Perused the credit invoice dt.03.03.2014 for Rs.31, 800/-. The complainant has paid Rs.31, 750/- on two occasions which is Rs.50/- less from the credit bill. It is seen that the OP.1 has never raised his claim for Rs.50/- before filing of this case. Mutually the parties might have forgotten about the residual amount of Rs.50/-. For above high bill the outstanding amount of Rs.50/- against the complainant is not a matter and at no stretch of imagination such amount as raised by OP.1 can waive out the status of the complainant as consumer of the Ops. As per C. P. Act, ‘Consumer’ means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment xxx. The complainant has paid almost all the dues or he might have promised to pay the residual amount. Hence in the above circumstances, the complainant is the consumer of the Ops and is entitled for warranty benefits in respect of his laptop. The OP.1 had played mischief with the complainant with plea of outstanding dues. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.
8. The OP.1 in this case denied any approach by the complainant regarding problems in the laptop either to him or to OP.2 but on good faith the OP.1 convinced the OP.2 to extend warranty till 20.4.2015. On the other hand the OP.2 at para-3 of his reply stated that on 27.10.14 the complainant contacted OP.2 but as per record the system was out of warranty and hence the OP.2 advised the complainant to approach OP.1 to get the warranty updated. However, the OP.2 admitted that laptop in question was invoiced from OP.2 on 30.4.13 to OP.1 with 15 months warranty and in case the system is sold after time line of the warranty period then the seller is to approach the manufacturer Company to get the warranty updated. From the above facts it was cleared noticed that as per version of OP.2 the system was not under warranty as on 27.10.14 for the latches of OP.1 although it was sold to the complainant on 03.03.2014. It is further ascertained that after the instruction of OP.2, the complainant has approached the OP.1 for warranty update and the OP.1 has requested the OP.2 to update the warranty and it was done up to 20.4.2015.
9. It is seen from the record that the complainant has approached OP.2 on 27.10.2014 for the problems in the system. The terms and conditions laid down in the invoice of OP.1 at Sl. No.4 show that though no Company has their service centre at Jeypore, the warranty claims can be carried out through the dealer concerned i.e. OP.1. As per said conditions the complainant has contacted OP.1 for the defects in the system and by not getting any positive responds from OP.1, the complainant has contacted the OP.2 on 27.10.14. Hence the contention of OP.1 that the complainant has never approached him or OP.2 for any problem in the system is an afterthought in view of above narrated facts. It is also seen that the OP.1 has not issued warranty card for the convenience of the complainant. Further malfunctioning of system was within the knowledge of the Ops but they have failed to provide any service with some plea or other.
10. The system sold to the complainant should be free from defects and services must be carried out with care and skill and the above conditions are the part of every contract between the buyer and seller but in this case by not selling defect free system and also by not rectifying the defects, the Ops have violated the contract which was made with the complainant. After selling the product the Ops have forgotten their duty. The complainant has also suffered due to multiple defects in the system such as loose fitting of some parts, Pen drive slot problem, while using dongle the set sleep mode, wi fi and blue tooth drive problem. Those are the main ingredients for smooth functioning of a system but due to lapses of Ops, the complainant is suffering. This inaction certainly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
11. From the above discussions it can be easily concluded that the system of the complainant has multiple defects and in spite of knowing the problems, the Ops failed to rectify the defects. The complainant further stated that the OP.1 had attended the set but problems returned and thereafter the Ops did not listen. In the above circumstances, we feel that the complainant is certainly entitled for a defect free laptop in lieu of the defective one. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs.
12. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to replace the defective laptop with a new one of same brand and model and if same is not available, its next higher version be supplied to the complainant and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
