Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/481

DELL INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

VAISHAK RAJA P K - Opp.Party(s)

JOJU KYNADY

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.481/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 29/9/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.412/2014  dt. 3/3/2015 on the file of CDRF, Idukki.)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            M/s. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.,

          Divyashree Gardens, Ground Floor 12/1,

12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village,

Varthur Hobli, Bangalore-560 071.

 

(By Adv:  Joju Kynady)  

                 

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  Vaisakh Raja P.K., S/o. Murali Gopal Pandalai,

Mannarathil House, Near Telephone Exchange,

Muttam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki-685 587.

 

2.  M/s. Hyper Tech System, Opp: Kochu

Kodungalloor Temple, Near Iron Bridge,

Kollam-691 013. 

(By Adv:   Mohan Pandarathil)  

                

 

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order passed in C.C.No.412/2014 on the file of CDRF, Idukki the 1^st opposite party came up in appeal.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant.

          2.  The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a laptop computer on 5/2/2014 made by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.48,990/- for his education purposes. From the very beginning itself the laptop showed complaints of non-functioning of speakers and printer as well as operating system.  The complainant brought the system to the 2^nd opposite party for repair and cured thereafter the complaints persisted and during October 2014 the same complaints repeated.  There had the complaint of the system to boot up after a long hang and it was not able to restart.  Even after curing the defects again in November started the same defects and also showed some other problems such as not switching off, power light does not go off, hanging after booting etc.  It is alleged in the complaint that the laptop is having manufacturing defects and this was informed to the opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party informed that they were unable to replace the complainant’s laptop which is having manufacturing defect. As per the user’s manual, the Lap Top is having guarantee of one year from the date of purchase.  The defects occurred during the period of warrantee and the complainant filed this complaint to replace the laptop with a warrantee of further 12 months or pay back the price of the laptop and also for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and hardship.  The complainant also claimed the cost of proceedings. 

3.  Though notice was issued the opposite parties remained absent and set-exparte. 

          4.  Before the Consumer Forum the complainant filed proof affidavit  examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts: P1, P2 series and P3 series.  The Forum below allowed the complaint and that order is challenged in appeal.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party submitted that the 2^nd opposite party who is the dealer had already serviced on request of the complainant.  The 1^st time reported issue was that non-functioning of speakers and printer of the laptop were not working and the Service Engineer of the appellant resolved the issue by replacing the speaker.  Again the operating system DVD was installed on 27^th August 2014.  It is also admitted that there had the complaint of key board and speaker which were also replaced by the service engineer in October, 2014.  As and when the service was required it was properly done by the 2^nd opposite party.  The laptop was working and parts were replaced during the service.  Hence no replacement of the laptop is required.  The respondent declined the technical support offered by the appellant for which no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed upon the appellants.  It is the respondent who denied the service of the appellant.

6.   It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the laptop is having inherent manufacturing defects and several time it had to be taken for repairs to the 2^nd opposite party.  The respondent is a B.Tech student who purchased the laptop for his educational purposes.  The defects found during the warranty period and several times the laptop was taken for repair is an admitted fact even at the appeal stage.  No satisfactory reason was stated for the non-appearance of the appellant before the Forum Below.  It is nothing but mere adamant nature of the opposite party for not responding to the notice of the Consumer Forum which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

          7.  We have heard both sides in detail and had gone through the records.  It is an admitted fact that the laptop purchased by the respondent is having defects which were rectified even then there had no satisfactory solution for the defect in the laptop.  We would like to point out that the laptop purchased for the educational purpose of a student created problems and the service extended is not of proper use to the respondent.  Moreover the non-appearance of the opposite party after accepting the notice definitely goes in favour of the respondent.  The respondent spent Rs.48,990/- and he could not utilize the laptop properly.  No satisfactory reason stated in the appeal memorandum regarding the non appearance of the appellant before the Consumer Forum.  Hence we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Forum Below.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

          The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 A. RADHA               :              MEMBER

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

              KERALA STATE CONSUMER

              DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.481/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 29/9/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.