Delhi

East Delhi

CC/416/2015

GULCHARAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIDUR CO - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         416 /2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  13/07/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 09/01/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          10/01/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Gulcharan Singh , adult   

s/o- Sh Fateh Singh  

R/o  H 14, Govind Khand

Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil, Delhi 110032……..…………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Vidhur & Co. Pvt ltd.    

651, Guru Nanak Pura,

Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi 11009

 

2- M/s Digicom Complete Solution Ltd.        

107 A , 108A, 1^st Floor, Modi Tower  

Building no. 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi

 

3-M/s Dell India Ltd.

Inner Ring Road, Bangaluru 560078…………………………………………..Opponnents

 

Complainant Advocate……………………….……….Praveen Maheshwari   

Opponent 1 …………….………………………………….Ranjit Chaudhary 

Opponent 2 & 3…………………………………………..Nitesh Ranjan - AR     

 

Quorum                                                                  Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                                 Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased Dell Laptop model 1 DELL INS Targus Entry level vide invoice no. VCPL/01377/14-15 on dated 06/06/2014 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 33,558/-marked here as CW1/1. The screen of laptop was not working properly from very next day as laptop was under warranty, so complaint was lodged with OP2 as OP1 was not replying well.  When no reply was received from OP2, complainant made complaint to OP3 and requested for replacing the laptop. OP3 advised to deposit the laptop with their service centre as OP2, but no job sheet was issued even on number of visits. Hence aggrieved by the deficiency in services by OPs, filed this complaint.

Notices were served. OP 1 submitted authority letter and after receiving the complaint copy, did not submit written statement or evidence.  Despite of giving number of opportunities, OP1 did not appear, so their stage was closed. OP 2 & 3 jointly submitted their written statement   through their authorized representative and denied all the allegations put in complaint as there was no deficiency in the services of OPs.

It was stated that the complainant purchased DELL INS Inspiron 3521 bearing system Tag #8GFPD02 on 06/06/2014 from OP1 after full satisfaction. The said laptop had no manufacturing defects and for the sake of extracting money from OP3, parties were made.  It was stated that all Dell products had standard warranty of one year and consumers could avail services without any hassle, but warranty does not cover damages, electric power problems, act of God, fire, flood war act of violence. Their well trained service engineer provides product services as repair and support. But software, external devices and accessories etc. were not covered under standard warranty cover.

 It was also stated that complainant approached on 02/11/2014 for booting problem which was replaced by OP3 and educated complainant for its proper use. The satisfactory service remark was also given by complainant on 05/12/2014. It was also reported that some problem had occurred in USB port which again replaced.  All replacements were done in warranty tenure free of cost. But complainant did not collect the said laptop despite of being intimated to him. No terms and conditions of warranty were violated by OPs. So, taking the reference of City Municipal Corporation vs Lateef & Co. (AIR 2004 Kant 491), complainant had failed to establish the deficiency of OPs.  OP3 stated that their products were defects free and in absence of manufacturing defects, products were not replaced as held in Shiv Prasad Paper Industries Vs Senior Machinery Co. (I) (2006) CPJ NC.  Hence, this complaint may be dismissed in ref to Vikra Bajaj & others vs Hind Motors Ltd. & others (2009 (II) CLT 670), where it was held that if complainant had failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that the goods were suffering from manufacturing or latent defect, the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed.   

 

Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and asserted that there was manufacturing defect and OP2 did not replace his defective piece. The affidavit in support of evidences was submitted by A.R. of OP 2 & 3 who also stated that there was no negligence by them in providing services as per their standard warranty terms and conditions. Whenever any problem was brought in their notice, it was timely rectified and also replaced PCB and some parts free of cost.

Arguments  were heard from both the counsel and order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP3 that the said laptop had PCB problem which was timely replaced. Complainant did not approach to the authorized service centre OP2 for taking his laptop, but complainant insisted for replacement by a new laptop. So, complainant could not establish any deficiency in services of OP2 or prove manufacturing defect for which OP3 made liable. OP1 being seller of the product had no allegations proved on record against OP1. OP2 who was an authorized service centre of OP3, had done the work as per warranty conditions. Hence no damages or deficiency was proved by complainant.    

Taking merits of the case, we pass the following order as under-

1. Complainant is directed to collect the said laptop from OP2/service centre within 15 days from the receiving of order.
2. OP2 shall hand over the laptop in good working condition to the complainant.
3. OP3 shall also extend six months warranty on the said lap top from the date of handing over of lap top to complainant.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh  President