DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.540 of 10-11-2016

Decided on 23-05-2017

Nirmal Singh aged about 51 years S/o Karnail Singh R/o C-832, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Reliance Retail Ltd., First Floor, Reliance Mark, Barnala Road, Bathinda, through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.M/s Dell India, R/2, Embassy Golf, Links Business Park, Inner Ring Road, Challaghatta, Bangalore, India-560017, through its Managing Director.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Nirmal Singh in person.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate.

For opposite party No.2: Sh.H.S Khosa, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Nirmal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Reliance Retial Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one laptop Dell Inspiron 5547 for Rs.57,620/- from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. It was carrying guarantee of one year. He got extended the warranty of the laptop for further 2 years on payment of Rs.5593/-.

3. It is alleged that in the month of June 2016 i.e. during the warranty period, the laptop started giving trouble as its touch pad and screen stopped working and battery halts. The complainant contacted opposite party No.2, but it informed that its warranty was up to 28.2.2016. He many times approached opposite party No.2, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed for refund of price of laptop with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing the separate written version.

   In the written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is false and not maintainable. Opposite party No.1 is engaged in retail sale of consumer durables, manufactured by various manufacturers including Dell. It sells the product in the same condition without opening the pack. The complaint is liable to be dismissed qua opposite party No.1. The liability of post sales service is always undertaken by the manufacturer alone through its service centres. Opposite party No.1 has no role in the matter. The customer has been dealing directly with the manufacturer. Opposite party No.1 has no role to play of post sales of the product in resolving the defect/warranty issue, if any, of the complainant. This complaint, if accepted against opposite party No.1, it will result in unalwful gain to the complainant and unlawful loss to opposite party No.1.

5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the product from the store of opposite party No.1 alongwith standard warranty, which was effective only after expiry of one year. It is admitted that the complainant visited opposite party No.1 and informed about the warranty issue allegedly communicated to him by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its behalf. The complainant did not contact opposite party No.2 directly and dealt with the dealer. Opposite party No.2 has always been ready and it is willing to provide support services under terms of the warranty. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the product on 29.10.2015 from opposite party No.1, but as per opposite party No.2, it was not aware about the extended warranty and it has not received any amount towards the extension. It is reiterated that opposite party No.2 is ready and willing to provide the warranty to the complainant to resolve the issues. The warranty status has been updated in the record of opposite party No.2 to reflect the date of expiration to be 28.10.2016. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

8. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 25.1.2017 and 10.11.2016, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C3); photocopy of warranty details, (Ex.C4); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6) and submitted written arguments.

9. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Umendra Singh dated 17.4.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence.

10. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitesh Ranjan dated 9.3.2017, (Ex.OP2/1); photocopy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP2/2); photocopy of warranty details, (Ex.OP2/3) and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by complainant.

12. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

13. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

14. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the product from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. This fact is not disputed by both opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that opposite party No.2 has refused to provide the services, but opposite party No.2 has fairly admitted that it is ready to provide the services as per warranty terms and conditions. It appears that earlier denial was due to the fact that as per opposite party No.2, earlier there was mismatch in the warranty period as record of manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2 reflects the date of initiation of warranty as the date on which the retailer bought the product i.e. opposite party No.1 from it, but subsequently, it was updated till 28.10.2016. Opposite party No.2 is manufacturer. It has expressed its readiness to do the needful as per warranty terms and conditions.

15. Keeping in view of above mentioned version of opposite party No.2, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is directed to repair the laptop in question as per terms and conditions of the warranty.

16. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    23-05-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member