Delhi District Court
Mr. Gautam vs Infiniti Retail Ltd (Trading As Croma) on 20 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. VAISHALI SINGH:
CIVIL JUDGE -03 (SOUTH WEST), DISTRICT COURT DWARKA, NEW
DELHI
CS SCJ No. 160/18
MR. GAUTAM
S/O LATE SOILEN DAS
R/O DAKSHINAYAN APPARTMENT
FLAT NO. 612, PLOT NO. 19,
SECTOR-4, DWARKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110078 .............Plaintiff
Versus.
1. INFINITI RETAIL LTD (TRADING AS CROMA)
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
DEL-SOUL CITY-A087,
PLOT NO. 4, TOLL CITY MALL, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
2. DELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN INDIAN PARTNERS
12/1, 12/2A, DIVYANSHREE GREENS,
CHALLANGHATTA, VARTHUR HOBLI,
GROUND FLOOR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA, 560075, INDIA ............Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2,55,000/- (TWO LACS FIFETY FIVE
THOUSAND FIVE ONLY) ALONGWITH INTEREST 18% PER ANNUM
FOR DAMAGES, PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
Date of Institution : 03.02.2018
Date of matter reserved for judgment : 05.12.2022
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2022.
JUDGMENT
CASE OF PLAINTIFF
1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are registered companies having their office at the above mentioned addresses. The defendant number 1 is a CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 1/12 company trading in various branded electronic goods and consumables and the defendant no. 2 is a company manufacturing and trading in computer under the brand name 'DELL'.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff above named is a professional, who on 30th of June, 2017 went to the retail outlet of the defendant No. 1 trading under the name of Croma located at Radisson Blue Hotel, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 to purchase a Laptop Computer. Plaintiff states that there were several models on display in the aforesaid showroom which included brands like HP, Acer, Lenovo, Apple and that of Dell, however, the marketing personnel, Mr. Uday Rajput from Croma conveyed to the plaintiff that the Dell Inspiron Model 5368 with a configuration of 13/4GB/1TB with Windows 10 bearing item Code 198683 was the best option for him.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Plaintiff time and again conveyed to Mr. Uday Rajput and his associated sales personnel Mr. Deepak And Mr. Vipin Joshi from Croma that the nature of his work involved use of MS Office and internet, all the sales personnel namely Mr. Vipin Joshi and Mr. Deepak who were interacting with the plaintiff including Mr. Uday Rajput emphatically suggested and persuaded the Plaintiff to believe that the said Model from Dell, due to it being loaded with MS Office would be best and ideal for the purposes as explained by the plaintiff and it would not require additional procurement of any software from other agencies and specially loading and integration of the software and hardware.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Plaintiff was made to believe by Mr. Uday Rajput, Mr Vipin Joshi and Mr Deepak of M/s Croma that the Laptop along with the software packages like MS Office being supplied as fully loaded are integral part of the machine and it is a trouble free option, reliable and value for money. Plaintiff states that the sales price of the Computer/Laptop ultimately purchased by the plaintiff was almost double as compared to the machines of other branded manufacturing companies in display in the showroom of M/s. Croma, hence the sales CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 2/12 personnel used every tact and mechanism to persuade and make the Plaintiff believe that this was the best and trouble free computer/Laptop. Plaintiff states that he paid a much higher price differential which was almost in the range of 30-40% on the assurances given by the sales personnel from Croma Mr. Uday Rajput and Mr. Deepak.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the Sales Personnel from Croma, Mr. Uday Rajput and others also conveyed to him that any start up operational issues would be resolved at the site of Defendant no. 1 by the Defendant No. 2 and therefore plaintiff will not have to waste time and energy in visiting the service center of Defendant No. 2. Plaintiff states that believing into the assurances given by the defendant no. 1, he bought the machine and paid the invoiced amount of Rs.54,501.00 Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Five hundred one only) to the cashier and was issued a receipt cum inwoice bearing No. SLF02A087030013987 Dated 30/05/2017.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the payment was made sales personnel namely Mr. Uday Rajput and his collegues at Croma, switched on the machine and made some very preliminary displays like the booting of the system and said that since this was rush time and due to the rush and paucity of space in the Croma showroom any further demonstration and evaluation of the features of the machine and software need not be done as everything was working fine. Plaintiff states that on the assurance that the machine is fine, he left the showroom of Croma along with the Dell Laptop and went home. Plaintiff further states that two days later i.e on the 2nd of July, 2017 when the plaintiff switched on the machine at home and tried to access Hotmail to send a test mail, the laptop did not work and the entire screen of the Laptop turned into a hazy brown so much so that nothing could be visible and read on the machine. Plaintiff states that he decided to address the problem later as the he had to go out of station for work and he had to suffer as he could not take his computer for his work.
CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 3/12
7. Plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff who had several other engagements did not operate the machine for some days after reaching home and on the 14th August, 2017, the plaintiff visited Croma i.e. the defendant no. 1 at the retail outlet at Soul City Mall, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi and complained to their sales personnel there, namely Deepak and Mr. Uday Rajput at Croma regarding the difficulties and trouble in the Laptop being faced by him. Plaintiff states that the sales personnel Deepak and Mr Uday Rajput at Croma, after inspection of the machine, admitted that the machine was not working and that the plaintiff needs to lodge a formal complaint with Dell, the defendant no. 2 as defendant no. 1 was unable to solve the problem by themselves. Plaintiff states that a complaint was lodged then and there and on 16th August, 2017 and one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jangid from M/S Dell defendant no. 2 visited the plaintiff's residence and spent close to an hour in trouble shooting. Plaintiff states that all his efforts were in vain as he could not resolve the problem in the the laptop. Plaintiff further states that then Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jangid from Dell contacted his superiors in Dell and a volley of instructions were given to him but in spite of the collective efforts of Mr. Jangid and his superiors in Dell, the machine could not be rectified and the Engineers and technicians from Dell agreed that the defective Laptop is beyond repair. Plaintiff submits that it was then conveyed to the plaintiff that since this was a new machine not having been put to use even for an hour and the root cause of the flaws and deficiencies in performance could not be determined by the Dell representative, therefore plaintiff would be given a due replacement.
8. It is averred by the plaintiff that few days later, the plaintiff received a call from Defendant No. 2 and in a very cryptic language, it was conveyed to the plaintiff that the plaintiff was "NOT ELIGIBLE " for a replacement. Plaintiff states that he once again approached the defendant no. 1 and narrated the event of refusal for replacing the computer by Defendant no. 2 despite promise and despite having supplied a defective computer to the plaintiff, Defendant no. 1 assured the plaintiff that they would take up the matter with defendant no. 2 and that the plaintiff would receive an Email/ phone call. Thereafter from 19th August, 2017 to the 7th of CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 4/12 September, 2017, the plaintiff received several E-mails and phone calls from one Mr. Mukesh Kumar from Dell's service centre. The emails and phone calls were more aimed at generating records of communication rather than addressing the problem of replacing of machine with inherent hardware and software problems. Plaintiff states that it was apparent from the attached Emails that the technicians and engineers at Dell had not even tried to communicate with their own Engineer Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jangid and the two other service Engineers who Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jangid had spoken from the plaintiff's residence and they kept on sending standard Emails asking what was the nature of the problem in spite of the fact that Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jangid had not only conveyed to them over the phone regarding the technical problems after visiting the plaintiff's residence and struggling for more than an hour to repair/rectify the machine and had also taken snapshots of the screen which is self explanatory. Thereafter, in the last email sent on 7th September, 2017, the plaintiff received an Email from one Mr. Angad V. Kala, the designated Senior Support Resolver from Dell who conveyed that Dell will not be able to replace the Laptop computer system and that the plaintiff's case is being treated as closed from their end.
9. It is the contention of the plaintiff that having no recourse, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 14/09/2017 was duly replied by defendant no. 2 but refused to replace the Laptop or refund the money. Therefore, the plaintiff was left with no other option but to approach this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances.
CASE OF DEFENDANT NO. 110. It is the case of the defendant no. 1 that the Defendant No.1 i.e. Infiniti Retail Limited is company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on its retail business of consumer durables and electronics under the brand name 'Croma'. The profile of Defendant No.1 includes buying of various electronic products from different manufacturers bulk quantities at trade/volume discounts and then selling the product of manufactures to consumers on an order-by-order basis.
CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 5/12 Therefore, Defendant No. 1 states that it is a mere intermediary/ platform to connect the manufacturers to the potential customers.
11. It is the case of the defendant no. 1 that it is merely involved in the demonstration, guidance and support to the customers through its hired employees. Thereafter, the Consumer himself/herself verifies the same and then the transaction is completed with handing over of the goods bought in proper package and the remuneration being received by Defendant No.1. Defendant no. 1 states that this concludes the transaction and contract between the Defendant No.1 and the plaintiff ending all and any obligations of Defendant No.1 with respect to future defects that may be discovered upon unpacking of the goods and its use. However, Defendant No.1 ensures that, if approached, it provides effective after sale support by guiding the consumer about further steps to be taken in case of defect in the product.
12. Defendant no. 1 states that its role is limited to sale and nothing further and for all after sale services, the Defendant No.1 refers all the complaints, if any, to the Manufacturers and follows up with them and tries to resolve the same at the earliest possible date. Defendant No. 1 states that it has done the needful to resolve the grievances of plaintiff with respect to the said Product and that the Defendant No. 2 has already provided resolution to the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff has denied and is claiming for damages for which Defendant No. 1 is not even liable for because the Defendant No. 1 has done the needful to resolve the Plaintiff's grievances with respect to the said Product. Hence, Defendant No. 1 cannot be held liable for any damages.
CASE OF DEFENDANT NO. 213. It is the case of defendant no. 2 that the present suit for recovery of alleged debts owed by the defendant No.2 from the Plaintiff is false and fictitious and is a result of the Plaintiff's malicious plan to extort money from the Defendant No.2. It is the case of the defendant no. 2 that no claim with respect to the cost of the laptop is CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 6/12 maintainable against the Defendant No.2 as the said laptop is not detectıve in any manner whatsoever. Thus any claims or damages claimed by the Plaintiff arising thereto have no foundation either.
14. It is the case of defendant no. 2 that it is well settled that in case an equipment or machinery can be repaired, no order can be passed for replacement or refund of the same as laid down in the case of Shiv Prasad Paper Industries v. Senior Machinery Company - I (2006) CPI 92 NC. In the present case, the Defendant No.2 has offered to provide the support services as per warranty furthermore, since the said laptop was having software related issues, the same was subject to repair only and Defendant No. 2 is ready and willing- to provide support services, however, the Plaintiff who has refused to avail the services and is instead demanding refund/damages.
REPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF
15. In his replication plaintiff reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint and denied those of the written statement.
ISSUES
16. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld Predecessor on 11.07.2019 as under:-
i) Whether the defendant no.1 is also responsible for all the defects in the products sold by it? OPP.
ii) Whether the defendant no.1 is not responsible for any defect in the products sold by it as they are brought after a due inspection by the purchasers? OPD-1
iii) Whether the defendant no. 2 is bound to refund the cost of the laptop purchased by the plaintiff? OPP.
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as prayed for? OPP v) Relief. CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 7/12 PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
17. Plaintiff Sh. Gautam examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/1. He relied upon the following documents:-
i) Invoice dated 30.06.2017 by Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) exhibited as Ex.PW- 1/1 admitted by D1.
ii) Copy of emails received from Dell International Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. (D2) dated 27.08.2017, 25.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 are exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW- 1/5 respectively.
iii) Copy of legal notice dated 14.09.2017 to the defendants exhibited as Ex.PW-
1/6 and Ex.PW-1/7. Admitted by D2.
18. Further, plaintiff examined Sh. Debashish Neogi as PW-2 and he reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint by way of affidavit Ex PW-2/A.
19. Thereafter, both PWs were cross examined by the Counsel for defendants and thereafter plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
20. Sh. Ranish Dogra examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/1. He relied upon the original authority letter dated 24.05.2022, same is Ex.DW-1/2.
21. Further, Sh. Sandeep Singh examined himself as DW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 8/12
i) Ex.DW2/1 is the copy of authorization letter dated 09.07.2018.
ii) Ex.DW2/2 is the system configration at pages 175 and 177.
iii) Ex.DW2/3 is the standard terms of warranty from pages 179 to 199.
iv) Ex.DW2/4 is the extension of authorization letter dated 02.06.2022.
v) Ex.DW2/5 is the affidavit/certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
22. They were cross examined by the Counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, defence evidence was also closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINDINGS
23. Therefater final arguments were advanced by counsels for all the parties at length.
24. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels and have perused the record in its entirety. My issuewise findings are as follows:
i) Whether the defendant no.1 is also responsible for all the defects in the products sold by it? and ii) Whether the defendant no.1 is not responsible for any defect in the products sold by it as they are brought after a due inspection by the purchasers?
Onus to prove issue (i) was upon the plaintiff whereas onus to prove issue (ii) was upon defendant no. 1. Plaintiff in his cross examination by counsel for defendant no.1 admitted that no written guarantee or warranty was ever given by defendant no. 1 with respect to the laptop purchased by the plaintiff. Plaintiff further deposes therein that there was no written contract between him and defendant no. 1 for any after sales services. However, despite this when plaintiff approached defendant no.1 after 45 days of purchase of the laptop, defendant no. 1 escalated his complaint to defendant no. 2. Defendant no.1 is admittedly a retailer of electronic goods selling CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 9/12 laptops of various manufacturers, one of which is defendant no.2. Defendant no. 1 has argued that no product is pushed by their sales persons and sales persons are present only to demonstrate the products. Plaintiff is well educated and a lawyer by profession, therefore even if any product was specifically pushed by the sales persons, he could have looked around and made an informed decision as per his needs and budget. In the present case, plaintiff has deposed that even though the product was turned on in front of him, however, due to rush in defendant no. 1's showroom, proper demonstration was not given by sales persons defendant no.1. Plaintiff has also admitted that he did not file any complaint regarding poor service by the sales persons of defendant no.1. Therefore, in the present case, i do not find any liability of defendant no.1 regarding the defects in the laptop.
iii) Whether the defendant no. 2 is bound to refund the cost of the laptop purchased by the plaintiff ? and iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as prayed for?
Onus to prove both of these issues was upon the plaintiff. In the present suit, it is already settled after deposition of all the parties that the screen of plaintiff's laptop was flickering/turning hazy brown when hotmail was accessed through internet explorer. Defendant no. 2 is the manufaturer of the laptop and has stated in its deposition that there was no hardware defect in the laptop and for software issues, remote diagnosis is provided, meaning an engineer sitting at a remote location guides the consumer, irrespective of the consumer's education, background or training, to resolve the software issues. AR of defendant no.2 has also deposed that the operating system in the laptops maufactured by them is licensed from Microsoft. It is also deposed by defendant no.2 that site engineer visits a customer only when there is a hardware issue and in the present case, site engineer was sent only as an exception as the system was new.
Defendant no.2 on the one hand has deposed that the plaintiff did not allow the onsite engineer to resolve the issue and asked for a replacement and on another hand has deposed that the onsite engineer was a hardware specialist. It is also admitted position of defendant no. 2 that the system was brand new and was well within CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 10/12 warranty. AR of defendant no.2 in his deposition has stated that a system is replaced by them only as an exception, however have not stated as to what are those rarest of rare cases in which they replace a brand new system within waaranty facing a software issue when they are not providing either on site software support or software support through service center. This court fails to understand defendant no.2's logic that how a customer, who is not familiar with the technical side of software resolution, can resolve software issues when guided by an engineer telephonically when their own onsite engineer, who is more skilled was unable to resolve the same. I do not find any merit in defendant no.2's arguments that the suit poperty was never produced before this court when it is their own admission that the suit was report was facing software issues. Defendant no. 2 cannot shrug off their liability by stating that theere was a minor software issue in the suit property. When customer buys a product from a reputable brand such the defendant no.2, he or she is under an impression that quaity of the product as well as the service will be far better than its other competitors. In the present case, defendant no. 2 has failed to povide satisfactory customer service to the plaintiff. This court is left wondering, if defendant no. 2 has treated a brand new system within warranty in this manner, then what would be its treatement of the customers where the system is older and without warranty. Defendant no.2 is liable to pay the entire sale price of the laptop/suit property, i.e. Rs. 54, 501/- (Rupees fifty four thousand five hundred one only). Further, even though plaintiff has not provided the specification of damages suffered by him in lieu of the faulty system, however, in the interest of justice this court deems it fit to award reasonable damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only). Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant no.2.
RELIEF
25. Defendant no. 2 is directed to pay sale price of the laptop/suit property, i.e. Rs. 54, 501/- (Rupees fifty four thousand five hundred one only) to the plaintiff along with damages amounting to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) within one month from today along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 11/12 of the amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant no.2.
26. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
27. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court Today i.e. on 20th December, 2022 (Vaishali Singh) Civil Judge-03 (South-West), DWK, New Delhi CS SCJ No. 160/18 Gautam Vs. Infiniti Retail Ltd. & Anr. Pages 12/12