State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dell International Services India Pvt. ... vs P. Babji on 31 July, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 382 OF 2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.99/2018
DISTRICT CONSUM ER COMM ISSION-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
The Authorized Signatory, M/s Bajaj Electronics,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr. Karan Bajaj, S/o Pavan Bajaj,
Aged : 31 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o Flat No.202, Sagar Apartments,
Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad-500 004.
...........Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1
And:
1.Mr. P.Babji, S/o Late Sri P.Reddayya, Aged about : 57 years, Occ.: Central Govt. Service, R/o H.No.8-3-231/181 & 182/B, Srikrishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500 045.
.........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. M/s Dell Intl India Pvt., Ltd., Divya Sree Gardens, Koramangala, Inner Ring Road, Domlur Post, Bangalore-530 078, Karanataka, Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
........Respondent No.2/OP No.2 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 : M/s Santhosh Singh & Associates.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : M/s R.Mahanty Counsel for the Respondent No.2/OP No.2 : Called absent F.A.No. 139 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.99/2018 DISTRICT CONSUM ER COMM ISSION-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
Dell International Services India Pvt., Ltd., Having its registered office Address at: 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Greens, Challaghtta Village, Varthur, Hubli, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 036, Through its Authorized Representative.
...........Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 2 And:
1. Mr.P.Babji, S/o Late Sri P.Reddayya, R/o 8-3-231/181 & 182/B, Srikrishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-45.
.........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. M/s Bajaj Electronics, Plot # 722 # RD#36, Pemmaasani Complex, Near Madhapur PS., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33.
........Respondent No.2/OP No.1 Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 : M/s M.A.Jawed Mujeeb Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : Sri R.Mahanthi Counsel for the Respondent No.2/OP No.1 : Called absent QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL) WEDNESDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ********** Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1. The appeal FA No.382/2019 is filed by opposite party No.1, u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 29.04.2019 in CC 99/2018, where under the opposite parties NO.1 & 2 are directed to refund cost of the laptop with 18% interest from the date of purchase till realization besides, compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The appeal FA No.139/2020 is filed by opposite party No.2, u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 29.04.2019 in CC 99/2018, where under the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to refund cost of the laptop with 18% interest from the date of purchase till realization besides, compensation of 3 Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant on 12.03.2017 purchased laptop from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.36,501/- and obtained receipt and system generated warranties; that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the opposite party shall render free service of the product for one year; that within five months of its purchase the laptop did not work properly; that the daughter of complainant by name Ms. Monika working as Branch Manager, in Dr.Agarwal Eye Hospitals, Rajamundry, informed authorized service centre at Rajamundry by online email on 23.08.2017 about the mal- functioning of the product and requested for replacement of the laptop; that thereafter, several correspondence went on between both sides and the opposite party refused to replace the same, but agreed to provide refurbish/repaired laptop with carry forward warranty; that the expert opinion also shows manufacturing defect in the laptop; that due to the acts and actions of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered a lot due to defective and the manufacturing defects in the product and also mental agony; hence, the complaint to refund the cost of the laptop with 24% interest and with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- etc.
4. The Opposite Parties though received notices failed to appear before the Commission, as such they were set ex-parte.
5. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex. A1 to A7. Written arguments filed for the complainant.
6. The Commission below, settled the following points for discussion viz..:
Whether the complainant could make out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?4
Whether complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
To what relief?
7. Having heard both sides, the Commission below basing on the material available on record passed the order as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal in FA 382/2019 is filed by the Opposite Party No.1 with the following grounds:
The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Commission below ought not have granted the reliefs as awarded.
The Commission below ought to have observed that as per the invoice "goods once sold, will not be taken back or exchanged under any circumstances, articles sold is/are guaranteed by manufacturers only, but not the seller.
The Commission below failed to observe that the dispute is only between the purchaser and the manufacturer but not with the seller against whom there is no deficiency of service is pleaded.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the order, the appeal in FA 139/2020 is filed by the Opposite Party No.2 with the following grounds The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Commission below failed to observe that as per established law the manufacturer cannot be directed to replace a new product.
5 The Commission below failed to justify to arrive at a fair compensation which shall be fair, reasonable and in accordance with loss or injury.
The Commission below arbitrarily awarded the amounts.
The Commission below failed to observe that the appellant even offered a replacement of the laptop with refurbished product but it was not accepted by the R1/complainant, though terms and conditions of the warranty provides the same.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint.
9. Now the points for determination are :
(1) W hether the complainant is entitled for the replacement of new laptop in place of the old one?
(2) W hether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(3) W hether the impugned order is sustainable under law? (4) Relief?
10. Nobody advanced any arguments in FA 382/2019. Heard counsel for the appellant only in FA 139/2020. Despite time of 15 days was given for both sides, to file written arguments by serving copy on the other side, it was not availed. For the sake of the convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the impugned order.
11. POINTS 1 to 4: Ex.A1 is the invoice dated 12.03.2017 given in favour of PW1 by the opposite party No.1, for Rs.36,501/- with a categorical note that "goods once sold, will not be taken back or exchanged under any circumstances, articles sold is/are guaranteed by manufacturers only". Ex.A2 is the warranty and technical assistance information issued by opposite party No.2. It 6 goes to show that the opposite party No.2, warrants to the end user in accordance with the following provisions; that its hardware projects purchased by the end user directly from DELL or from an authorized distributor/ re-seller of DELL in Latin American or the Caribbean, or free from defects in materials, workmanship and design affection normal use for a period of one year from original purchase date. Products for which a proper claim is made shall be, at DELL's discretion (in those jurisdictions where such decision lies in DELLs power), repaired or replaced at DELL's expense. All the parts removed from the repaired products shall become the property of DELL. DELL uses parts from various manufacturers to make repairs. The parts may be new or refurbished (except when by-law DELL must use new parts in the repair) and of equivalent or higher quality and technology with respect to the original product specifications". So it is very clear that the opposite party No.2 may use new or refurbished parts.
12. It is important to note that as per the complaint itself, the laptop was used for about five months and it started mal- functioning from 23.08.2017 itself. One has to bear it in mind that as per the warranty, the Company agreed to undertake repairs free of cost for one year only. It means the absolute warranty on the entire product is available for one year only. Out of which, PW1 already used the product for five months. It is the categorical contention of the opposite party No.2 that replacement with new product is not their policy and they will provide refurbished laptop which is certified by the DELL with a carry forward warranty. In other words, if a refurbished product is provided to a customer, it is only for the rest of the warranty period. Therefore, the contention of PW1 that he is entitled for the replacement of new product with older one is not sustainable.
13. Admittedly, the correspondence under Ex.A3 goes to show that the opposite party No.2 agreed to provide refurbished laptop with carry forward warranty of six months as per Ex.A5. However, PW1 was adamant enough to decline such offer and insisted for a new piece. On 13.02.2018 the opposite party No.2 7 even sent an email to the daughter of PW1 that "we have found a suitable match for the replacement system from our refurbished inventory and even given the details of configuration." As already stated supra PW1 not responded in a positive manner". In view of the terms and conditions of the warranty, PW1 is not entitled to claim for a new piece as a replacement. The opposite party No.2 agrees to provide a refurbished product, itself shows deficiency of service on their part in the product, but it cannot be construed that PW1 is entitled for a new piece. The Commission below without appreciating the terms and condition of the warranty, not only ordered for refund of the total amount with exorbitant interest @ 18% per annum besides compensation. The adamant behavior of PW1 alone led to the litigation. So, we are of the view that the order of the Commission below is liable to be set aside with a slight modification. Points are answered accordingly.
14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed without costs by setting aside the order, dated 29.04.2019 in CC 99/2018 by the District Commission -I, Hyderabad, with a modification that the opposite parties are directed to provide refurbished laptop to the complainant with the configurations, similar to that of the earlier one with a carry forward warranty by receiving the damaged laptop from the complainant. Time for compliance is 45 days and before the expiry of the same, the complainant shall express his intention for the refurbished laptop by offering the damaged piece to the Opposite Parties. The Respective appellants are entitled for the refund of the statutory deposit amounts made by them along with accrued interest, after the lapse of revision period.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 31st day of July' 2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 31.07.2024
*AD