State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satyawan vs M/S Premsons on 21 March, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 33 of 2016 Date of Institution 19.01.2016 Date of Decision 21.03.2016 Satyawan, r/o # 4168/B, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh. .....Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. M/s Premsons, SCO No.59, Dakshin Marg, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor. 2. Dell India Pvt. Ltd., 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divya Shree Greens, Koramangla Ring Road, Challagatta, Varthur, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560036 through its Managing Director. ......Respondents/Opposite Parties. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.1 exparte vide order dated 29.02.2016.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 18.12.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), vide which, it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents) as under :-
"7. For the reasons stated above, the present complaint is disposed of with a direction to the Ops to make the laptop in question fully functional by replacing the defective part(s), in case, the complainant approach them. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a laptop make Dell Model X318-3542 from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.10.2014 vide invoice No.686 for the sum of Rs.34,800/- (Annexure C-1). The said laptop was having warranty for a period of one year. It was stated that after few months, the laptop, in question, went blank and it stopped working. As such, the complainant lodged a complaint at the customer care on 08.06.2015. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 sent a CD to the complainant for rectifying the problem and after receipt of the said CD, he followed the instructions of the customer care executive but the said problem could not be rectified. Copy of the delivery notice is Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the complainant approached the service center of the Company on 16.06.2015, who informed that the hard disk of the laptop was defective and the same needs to be replaced but the service centre tried to replace the same with some old hard disk, to which, he objected to the same and took back his laptop. Copy of the repair order form is Annexure C-3. It was averred that the complainant lodged a complaint dated 09.07.2015 at the customer care centre of the Opposite Parties but such problem was not resolved. The complainant requested the Opposite Parties many times for replacement of the laptop, as the same was within warranty but the Opposite Parties refused to do so. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice, which was duly replied by Opposite Party No.2, wherein, it refused to replace the laptop. Copies of the legal notice, postal receipts and reply are Annexure C-4 to C-7. It was further averred that the laptop is lying unused since then, as it was having blank display. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the "Act" only), was filed.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties but despite service through Regd. Post, they failed to put in appearance and, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.10.2015. Thereafter, on 24.11.2015, Sh.Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, Counsel had put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and filed his Vakalatnama. At the time of arguments, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint and argued that the complainant himself refused to get the laptop, in question, repaired as per the warranty terms and rather insisted for its replacement. He further argued that there was no deficiency, in service, on its part.
4. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the contesting parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the Forum, disposed of the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. Notice of the appeal was sent to respondent No.1 (M/s Premsons) but it failed to put in appearance and as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.02.2016.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for respondent No.2 and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
10. The core question, that falls, for consideration, before us, is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. At the time of arguments, the Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant reported the matter to the customer care and a DVD of software was duly sent by the Company but the same did not work. He further argued that the laptop was checked by the technician and the hard disk was found to be defective and the respondent tried to replace it by an old hard disk, which was objected by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant declined repair because the engineer was fitting old/refurbished part. He further submitted that the laptop purchased by the complainant was less than one year and it cannot be expected that after eight months any customer would allow fitting of old parts in his laptop. He further submitted that the Forum failed to notice that the Opposite Parties have not denied that the laptop was having blank display and also it has not been physically damaged meaning thereby that the laptop was having some defect. On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Company is ready to repair the laptop, in question, as ordered by the Forum but the complainant wanted replacement of the laptop, which is not possible, at this stage, as the complainant already used the laptop extensively for a period of more than 7 months, without any defect, and also it was not having any manufacturing defect. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the laptop, in question, from M/s Premsons (Opposite Party No.1) for a sum of Rs.34,800/- vide Vat Invoice dated 24.10.2014 (Annexure C-1). Annexure C-2 is a copy of the delivery note dated 10.06.2015. From this document, it is proved that the Company i.e. Opposite Party No.2 sent a CD to the complainant for rectifying the problem. Annexure C-3 is a copy of the Repair Order Form. From this document, it is proved that the complainant approached the service centre of the Company on 16.06.2015 for rectifying the problem in the laptop. In the said Annexure C-3, under the column 'Issue Reported/Details of work', it is clearly written as "Issue not resolved due to customer want system replacement" and the said document was duly signed by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure C-4) to the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied by the Company - Opposite Party No.2 (Annexure C-7), wherein, the Company very specifically stated in para No.4 of its reply dated 21.08.2015 that 'the issue remained unresolved due to the fault of your client since an engineer of Our Client went to resolve the issue but the same was declined from your client's side. It is clearly proved from Annexure C-3 and reply to the legal notice (Annexure C-7) that the complainant did not want to resolve the said dispute and want replacement of the laptop, in question. It is, no doubt, true that the complainant purchased the laptop on 24.10.2014 and for the first time, he gave a complaint to the customer care on 08.06.2015. As such, the complainant used the said laptop for more than 7 months, without any fault. Had the complainant placed on record the other job sheets in order to prove that the laptop, in question, was faulty and the same was given to the service centre for repair on numerous occasion, then the point would have been different. Whether the said laptop is in repairable condition or not ? Moreover, the complainant failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding that the laptop was not in a repairable condition and the only solution is the replacement of the said laptop. Even the Forum rightly stated that the complainant is more inclined to replacement of the laptop, rather than its repair. At the time of arguments, Counsel for respondent No.2 agreed to repair the laptop of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld, with further direction to the Company (respondent No.2) to give one year additional warranty to the complainant for the laptop, in question.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, is partly allowed and the impugned order is upheld with further direction to the Company (respondent No.2) to give one year additional warranty to the complainant for the laptop, in question.
13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
21.03.2016 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER rb