State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dell International Services India Pvt. ... vs Anju Bala on 5 July, 2017
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 133 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.05.2017
Date of Decision : 05.07.2017
1. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. through its
authorized signatory Nitesh Ranjan, Vipul Tech.
Square, Sector 43, Near Golf Course, Gurgaon
122002
2. Dell India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory
Nitesh Ranjan, Divyasree Greens, Kormangla Ring
Road, 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta, Village
Varthur Hubli, Domlur, Banglore 560036
......Appellants
V e r s u s
1. Anju Bala w/o Sh.Akshat resident of House No.115,
Badal Colony, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab.
2. North India Computers , SCO No.38, 1st floor, Sector
20-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor .
----Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 03.03.2017 passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in
Consumer Complaint No.389/2016.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Anil Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2 PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 3.3.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant. 2
2.. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that she purchased one laptop from respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3 for an amount of Rs.30,000/ -. At the time of purchase, warranty card was not given to h er, despite making request. It was downloaded from the website of the appellants. It was st ated that after lapse of about of 10 months from the date of purchase, the laptop in question, started giving operational problem. The matter was taken up with OP No.3, who after inspection , handed over the laptop to the complainant stating that it had so me hard disk problem and the same cannot not be replaced being beyond the warranty period. It was stated by OP No.3 that warranty had expired in the month of February,2016. Correspondence took place between the parties. However, when grievance of the co mplainant was not settled, she filed a consumer complaint bearing No.389 of 2016 before the Forum alleging deficiency in service with a prayer that direction s be issued to the OPs to replace the laptop with a new one.
3. Upon notice, reply was fil ed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Sale of laptop was admitted. It was further stated that warranty of a product starts from the date when the same is shipped to the retailer of the Company. After sale, it is duty of the retailer to communic ate to OPs No.1 & 2 the date of sale of a product and thereafter the warranty period of one year is 3 rescheduled from the date of purchase by a customer. It was further stated that in this case the dealer failed to communicate the date of purchase of the l aptop by the complainant and in view of that warranty period could not be extended/rescheduled . However, on getting intimation from the complainant, as a goodwill gesture , warranty period of laptop was extended for 3 months. It was stated that laptop was never brought to the service Centre of the appellants even after updating of the warranty period. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the laptop, as alleged.
4. Respondent No.2/OP No.3 filed a separate reply stating that the complainant approached it with a problem in the laptop and she was asked to leave the laptop , however, it was not so done by the complainant.
5. To the reply filed, rejoinder was filed by the complainant controverting the pleas taken by the OPs and reiterating the claim made in h er complaint.
Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, allowed complaint of the compla inant vide order dated 3.3.2017 granting following r elief to the complainant/respondent No.1;
"Keeping in view the facts as discussed above, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to replace the Dell Latitude Laptop 3540 -4
C13/4/500S/NO7npfw32 with new laptop in proper working condition alongwith payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/ - and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/ - to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant shall handover the old laptop alongwith accessories etc. to OPs on receiving the new one. "
The laptop was ordered to be replaced with a new laptop of the same make and model. Compensation of Rs.10,000/ - was granted for suffering mental and physical harassment besides payment of Rs.5000/ - towards litigation expenses. Hence, this appeal.
6. It has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the appellants that there was no deficiency in providing service. The laptop was never brought to the service Centre of appellants as there was no defect in the same. As a goodwill gesture, warranty was extended for 3 months. It was stated that under the above circumstances the order passed by the Forum was not justified
7. We are not going to accept the argument raised. Deficiency in service is amply proved on record . The Forum, when granting above relief to the complainant/respondent No.1 has observed as under ;
"The complainant purchased a Latitude Laptop 3540-C13/4/500 of DELL on 15.6.2015 for Rs.30,000/- from OP No.3 (Annexure C -1). The 5 laptop carry the warranty for one year, however, on the basis of warranty details (Annexure C -2) available, the OPs have denied him the service for repair of problem in the laptop. The OPs No.1&2 in their written statement have admitted lapse on the part of its dealer in providing the service. It is stated in para 2 of the affidavit of Nitesh Ranjan authorized representative of Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. " The warranty of Dell products start from the date they are shipped to the Dell retailer. Once the sale is made by the retailer, the same has to be communicated and intimated to Dell and the warranty of the products are re -scheduled from the date of invoice of sale. Due to failure of the dealer to communicate the same to us the answering OP as a bonafide gesture p rovided a 3 months extension of warranty in addition to the correcting of warranty for one year period."
The complainant could get this warranty update only after protracted correspondence with OPs. However, the hard disk problem (Annexure C -3 at page 17) in the laptop of the complainant still has not been resolved by OPs.
The OPs NO.1&2 though has provided 3 months extended warranty to the complainant for the lapse on the part of the dealer at no additional cost but same is of no use as the problem o f the laptop has not been attended to and the warranty period upto 15.9.2016 has already been expired."
8. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellants has virtually admitted that there was inaction on the part of 6 the retailer/OP No.3/respon dent No.2 in not intimating the date of sale of the product to the appellants so that warranty period could have been rescheduled. Respondent No.2 is a representative of the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2. For any negligence on its part, appellants would be vicariously liable to compensate the consumer who may have suffered on account of mistake on the part of the retailer. The order passed is perfectly justified. It is proved on record that defect in the laptop was brought to the notice of respondent No.2/OP No. 3 by the complainant. She was told that warranty period was over and as such nothing c ould be done even if complainant may approach the service Centre. Admittedly the product would carry warranty period of one year i.e. upto 14.6.2016. Due to inaction on the part of the retailer, the warranty period expired in the month of February,201 6. Thus, on account of above fact, the complainant was made to suffer unnecessarily.
9. It is on record that the retailer sent an email on 19.4.2016 to the appellants to settle grievance of the complainant. The contents of email read thus ;
"Plz find the attachment of customer invoice for warranty update. Due to hard disk problem."
It was specifically brought to the notice of appellants that there was some hard-disk problem with the laptop. Even then the matter was not settled. On 21.4.2016 the 7 complainant sent an email to the appellants, the contents of said email read thus ;
"Dear Concern As per our telephonic discussion I am sending the invoice copy of dell laptop purchased on 15 t h June,2015 from North India, Sector -20, Chandigarh.
Due to some problem in my laptop I logged the complaint on dell customer care number who informed that warranty had expired in February,2016 but it had to be expired on 15 t h June,2016 as one year warranty. Please update my warranty and solve the issue immediately of my laptop as I am suffering badly due to this defect. "
The complainant ha d specifically stated in h er email that she had telephonic talk with the Customer Care Centre and further the laptop was p urchased on 15.6.2015. The warranty was for one year. Request was made to update the warranty and solve the problem immediately. It was specifically stated that there existed some problem with the laptop. The said email was not replied. On 1 6.5.2016 the complainant again sent an email stating that she had failed to get any response and if email is not replied, she will take legal action. The contents of email read thus ;
"Dear concern, Your kind attention drawn to Email 21 s t April. No reply received till date. Neither warranty got updated despite several follow ups. Suffering 8 badly. If no reply received by tomorrow, will be constrained to take legal action.
Even no action has been taken on the email dated 19 t h April by North India Computers(Dealer) Sector-20, Chandigarh. Moreover no warranty card was issued at the time of purchase by dealer."
Even that email failed to have any effect. Complainant again sent an email on 1 7.5.2016 stating as under ;
"Your kind attention drawn to Email 21 s t April. No reply received till date. Neither warranty got updated despite several follow ups. Suffering badly. If no reply received by tomorrow, will be constrained to take legal action.
Even no action has b een taken on the email dated 19 t h April by North India Computers (Dealer) Sector-20, Chandigarh. Moreover no warranty card was issued at the time of purchase by dealer."
Even then nothing was done. Thereafter, complaint was filed on 2.6.2016.
10. On receipt of notice, it appears that warranty was extended for 3 months. In the intervening period, the complainant suffered a lot. It is admitted even by OP No.3/respondent No.2 in its email that there was some problem in the laptop. There is nothing on record that, for lapse on the part of the retailer/OP No.3 , in not intimating date for rescheduling warranty period, any action was taken against it. The complainant was made to suffer unnecessarily. Under the above circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order, under challenge. 9
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. Let the laptop, as ordered in para -10 of the order, under challenge, be replaced and the amounts mentioned therein be paid within 30 days from today, failing which, relief granted in para 11 of the order shall become operative.
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
05.07.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Js 10 STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No. 133 of 2017) Argued by: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Anil Puri, Advocate for respondent No.2 Dated the 5 t h July, 2017 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RAJ) (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.) (PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
11