State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Eunice L Chawngthu vs 1. Dell India Private Limited And ... on 18 February, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.341 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.408 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD Between: Dr.Eunice L Chawngthu 201, Venkat Kripa Apts., 16 Gagan Mahal, Hyd-029 Appellant/ complainant A N D 1. Dell India Private Limited Divyasree Greens, S.No.12/1 12/1A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village Vathur 1, Bangalore, Karnataka-071 2. Mr.Varma Proprietor Atlasoftoft, 23, Chandralok Complex S.D.Road, Secunderabad-003 Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant PIP Counsel for the Respondent M/s Zohar Rasheed QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
She filed complaint seeking for refund of `28,000/- i.e., the cost of laptop and damages to the extent of `4,98,000/-.
2. The case of the appellant a seen from the averments fo the complaint is that she purchased DELL VOSTRO 1510 Laptop from the respondent through Atlasoft of Secunderabad on 18.5.2010 for which the respondent had issued purchase bill. The appellant reported complaint in regard to functioning of the laptop on 27.9.2010 and non-functioning of DVD player through to Atlasoft of Secunderabad. On 29.9.2010 the technician of the respondent company repaired the laptop and noted that the start button was uneven, not closed properly, right side keypads were not functioning, Bluetooth was switched off and cursor was not functioning.
3. On complaint of the appellant, the engineer of the respondent company checked the laptop on 1.10.2010 and rectified Bluetooth problem. The appellant requested for replacement of laptop with new laptop. She complained on 4.10.2010 she requested for replacement of the laptop. Again on 7.10.2010 she requested the respondent company and it would send another engineer to check the system and refused to replace the laptop. The appellant refused the engineer to examine the laptop. On 28.10.2010 the official of the respondent company assured the complainant that the problem would be solved. On 2.3.2011 the appellant had sent email and the floor supervisor assured her that another engineer would be sent to her house in Hyderabad. The appellant filed complaint before District Consumer forum, New Delhi. The appellant represented the complaint at District Consumer forum Bangalore.
4. The respondent company resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant has no cause of action and the complaint is not maintainable. The appellant had deliberately concealed material facts and that the dispute involved in the complaint is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The appellant is not consumer and the dispute is not consumer dispute which can be triable exclusively by civil court.
5. The respondent company is engaged in manufacturing of laptops and computers.
The appellant faced some problem after the laptop was purchased, in using the laptop. On 29.9.2010 the engineer of the respondent company visited the appellant and found issues with DVD drive and touchpad and he replaced DVD drive and palmrest. The system was working fine. Each time the appellant called, her call was duly addressed by the officers of the respondent company. The appellant has not cooperated with the technical staff of the respondent and she kept insisting on for replacement of the laptop without allowing the engineers to inspect the laptop.
6. The engineer for the second time visited the house of the appellant on 1.10.2010 and found an issue with Bluetooth functioning since the wireless was switched off. He found no error with key board and touch pad. The respondent company offered the appellant to either send engineer to her residence and get the system serviced or pick the system from her residence and get it serviced at DELL Service providers office. The appellant had not accepted both the options and demanded for replacement of the system.
7. The respondent company is known for its service quality and does not send its executive without prior appointment with the customers. On 21.10.2010 Vinesh Soman of the respondent company called the appellant and offered to resolve the issues of the system. The appellant informed him that she would approach the court. On 26.4.2010 the appellant informed the respondent company that there was no display and LED indication on the laptop.
The appellant was advised to take the system to the service centre as the repairs have to be carried out on service warranty.
8. There is no defect in the system nor any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company. Amount cannot be refunded unless defect is ascertained by the respondent company. The repairs reported beyond return period which is usually 30 days from the purchase date. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The appellant filed her affidavit in support of her claim and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondent company its authorised representative Yoga Manohar Kakumanu filed his affidavit. The respondent has not chosen to file any documents.
10. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that within short period of its purchase the laptop began not to function properly. The District Forum has directed the respondent company to refund the amount of `28,000/- towards the cost of the laptop besides a sum of `5,000/- towards compensation and `1,000/- towards costs.
11. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed appeal contending that the respondent harassed her by accusing her of greed and nefarious intention. It is contended that within 4 months of its purchase the laptop begun to pose problems.
The engineers of the respondent company had not repaired the laptop in proper manner and they had spoiled the performance of the laptop. The appellant had sent two complaints through post to the Consumer Forum at Delhi and Bangalore and she wasted her precious time. Her safety was at risk and that the District Forum has not awarded interest on the amount of `28,000/- and it had awarded only the cost of the laptop.
The District Forum failed to see that the appellant had suffered mental agony and harassment at the hands of the respondent company and exemplary costs have to be awarded in her favour to the tune of `4,70,000/-.
12. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of fact or law?
13. The appellant had purchased Dell Vestro 1510 Laptop from the respondent company through Atlasoft Secunderabad on 18.5.2010 for consideration of `28,000/-. Within four months from the date of its purchase the laptop posed problems and thereafter the problems did not cease to exist. The appellant had reported to the respondent company on 4.10.2010, 7.10.2010, 21.10.2010 and 1.3.2011. On several occasions all the issues reported by the appellant were settled by the technical staff of the respondent company.
She eventually has approached the District Forum by filing complaint.
14. The respondent company before the District Forum has contended that the appellant was non-cooperative and she had not permitted its technical staff. It is not denied by the appellant that she did not permit the engineers of the respondent company to ascertain the defect that crept in the system. In the absence of any evidence showing the manufacturing defect in the system, the appellant cannot be held entitled to refund of the amount paid by her towards cost of the laptop. Yet the District Forum has awarded refund of the cost of the system besides granting a sum of `5,000/-.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant has not even produced the laptop before this Commission for it to be examined by the engineers of the respondent company. He has contended that as per limited warranty clause in the manual, the respondent is liable only to the extent of refunding or replacing the system and it is not liable to pay any compensation or consequential interest. He has relied upon the decision of the Honble National Commission in Videocon International Limited Vs Anil Kumar IV (2007) CPJ 270 and Hindustan Power Plus Limited Vs Santosh Drillers and Others IV (2007) CPJ 161.
16. In the aforementioned decisions, the National Commission held the purchaser entitled to refund of the cost or replacement of the system. The appellant, as aforesaid had not permitted the respondent to examine the laptop in order to ascertain the defect in it. The District Forum has awarded the amount towards cost of the laptop as also compensation.
17. The Honble Supreme Court in State of Gujarath vs Shantilal Mangaldas AIR 1969 SC 634. held the compensation to mean..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression paid would have been more appropriate.
18. The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable. In Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others 2000SAR (Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer l and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.
19. The District Forum has awarded a sum of `5,000/-
towards compensation which in our view is just and reasonable. We do not find any infirmity in the matter of relief granted by the District Forum.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.18.02.2012 KMK*