State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dell International Services India Pvt. ... vs Puneet Bansal on 20 July, 2017
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. : 187 of 2017
Date of Institution : 18.07.2017
Date of Decision : 20.07.2017
Dell Inter national Ser vices I ndia Pvt. Ltd. (earlier Dell India
Pvt. Ltd.) Di vyasree Greens, Ground Fl oor, 12/1, 12/2A,
13/1A, C hallaghatta, Village Var thur H obli, Bang al ore Sout h,
Bangal ore - 560071, Karnataka through it s authoriz ed
representati ve
......A ppell ant
V e r s u s
1. Puneet Bans al (m inor) S/ o Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bansal,
R/o house No.538, Amravati E nclave, Pinj ore, K alka,
District Panchkul a through his father/ natur al guardian
Sh. Bharat B hushan Bansal.
2. S.T . Computer S CO No.57, Sector 20 -C, C handi gar h
through its pr opri etor.
----R espondent s
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 29.05.2017 passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in
Consumer Complaint No.12/2017.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the appellant PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT Appell ant/Opposite Part y No.2 has filed this appeal against or der dated 29. 5.2017, passed by the District Consum er Dis putes Redr essal F orum(II), U.T . Chandigarh (for short t he F orum onl y), allowi ng a complai nt filed by respondent N o.1/ c omplai nan t.
2.. Res pondent No.1/complainant filed a complai nt against the appellant and respondent N o.2 stating that he 2 had purchased one laptop manufactured by the appellant, through OP No.2 for a s um of Rs . 28,300/ - on 22.6. 2016 with one year warr ant y. T he laptop started gi ving pr obl em wi thin one week of i ts purchas e. T he complai nant c ont acted the staff of appellant on toll free number and was s urprised to kno w that the w arrant y of his laptop had already expired, prior to the date of its purchase. He approached r espondent No.2 to remove the defect in the l aptop and to iss ue war rant y for a period of one year but nothing was done. He was ask ed to get the warranty peri od extended by paying an amount of Rs.999/- . He pai d the sai d amount and register ed with the appellant online for extended warrant y. His request was rejected by the appellant on 22. 7. 2016. He asked f or refund of the am ount paid, however, he f ailed to get any relief. On 23.8.2016 , he recei ved an em ail from the appellant , asking him to suppl y some documents , w hich was done. It was onl y on 1.11.2016 i.e. after a period of 5 months of the purchase of the lapt op, it was repair ed withi n warrant y. However, even thereaft er, the laptop cont inued to give trouble when operati ng it.
3. Upon notic e, OP No.2 filed its repl y. T he facts were put not to much dispute. It was pleaded that l ate sale of Laptop by OP N o.1 resulted mis match in the rec ord of OP No.2 and there was default on the part of respondent No.2/OP No.1 in not sending re quisi te informat i on to the appellant to revalidate the warranty period. It was further 3 said that extended warrant y of the laptop was gi ven as s uch complai nant was not entit led t o any r elief.
OP N o.1 did not appear despite ser vic e and suffered ex parte proc eedi ngs.
4. Both the parties led evidence. T he Forum, on anal ysis of pleadings, docum ents on rec ord, and argument s address ed, all owed the complaint . As a matter of f act, it was held that t here was defici enc y in providi ng ser v ice on the part of both OPs and f or the sai d lapse, the Forum grant ed compensation of Rs.10,000/ - with Rs.5000/ - towar ds litigation expens es. T he amount awarded was order ed t o be paid wit hin 30 days fr om the date of r eceipt of c opy of the order, failing which, i t was to entail penal consequence s. Henc e, this app eal.
6. It has vehem entl y been cont ended by Counsel for the appellant that the com plainant got repl aced the laptop purchas ed through respondent No. 2 on 3.3.2017 , and in view of the above f ac t, the For um was not justified i n granti ng compensation in favour of the c omplainant/res pondent No.1 . W e are not going to accept the above sai d argument. It was case of the com plainant that the laptop purchased was not function ing prope rly. It was gi ving troubl e again and again. T he war rant y period had al ready exp ir ed when it wa s purchas ed. Des pite making paym ent of extr a amount , wa rrant y per iod was not extended. U nder the above circumst ances, t h e complai nant m ade a pra yer to r eplace hi s laptop and also t o pay c ompens ation to him f or renderi ng 4 deficien t ser vice and putting hi m to mental and physica l harassm ent. W hen granting above relief to the complainant , the Forum obser ved as under ;
"T he complainant has pur chased laptop X 338 - 3543- C i3-4-1 -Dos-Cc for R s.28300/ - from S.T . Comput ers/OP N o.1 on 22.6. 2016 (retail i nvoic e Annexure C -1). T he Laptop c arr ies one year warrant y but the complai nant was later told that the warrant y per iod for the said laptop expir ed on 24.3.2016. D espite receipt of Rs.999/ - the OPs declined the request of the c omplainant and intimated that the warranty c annot be upgraded (AnnexureC -4 at page 17). O nly during the pendenc y of the present com plaint, the OP No.2 in its repl y has now intimated that due to laps e on the part of their deal er, t he warrant y period could not be r evi sed/ updat ed and now t he warrant y in cludi ng the extended warrant y of the laptop of t he complai nant shall expire on 23.8.2019.
T he com plainant obviousl y, has suffer ed immens e mental pain and harass ment. He cou ld not get his lapt op repaired from Ops due to callous attitude of OPs i n fail ure t o update t heir record r egardi ng warrant y peri od of lapt op in question. "
7. It was foun d, as a matter of fact, that both O Ps we re deficient in providi ng ser vic e and on acc ount of their inaction, the complainant was put to lot of m ental and ph ysical har ass ment. T he l aptop was also repaired aft er a dela y of about 5 months. E ven t hen it was not f unctioni ng properl y. On ac count of r eplac ement of t he unit dur ing 5 pendenc y of the complaint, no relief was grant ed to the complai nant qua that prayer. However, for s ufferi ng menta l agon y and physical harassm ent, relief was gr anted, as referred t o , in earlier part of the order. Ot her wis e , had the laptop been not replaced with a new one, the said relief wo uld have been granted to the c omplainant when order was passed by the F orum . Under the above circum st ances, we find no case m ade out to interf ere in the order , under challenge.
8. For the r easons r ecorded above, t he appeal, being devoid of merit, mus t fail, and the s ame is dismissed, wit h no order as to costs. T he order of the District Forum is upheld.
9. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, f ree of c harge.
10. T he file be c ons igned to Rec ord R oom, after completion.
Pronounced.
20.07.2017 Sd/-
[JUST ICE JAS BI R SINGH (RET D. )] PRESID ENT Sd/-
(DEV RA J) ME MBE R Sd/-
(PAD MA PAND E Y) ME MBE R Js 6 S T AT E COMMIS SI ON (First Appeal No.1 87 of 2017) Argued by: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the appellant Dated the 20th Jul y, 2017 ORDER The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay is condoned, in the interest of justice.
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(DEV RA J) (JUST ICE JAS BI R SINGH (RET D. ) (PAD MA PAND E Y)
ME MBE R PRESID ENT ME MBE R
7