Haryana

Karnal

297/2013

Vijay Arya S/o P.K. Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Simple Technologies., Dell India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Kumar

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.297 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.26.06.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 29 .07.2015

 

Vijay Arya son of Sh.P.R.Arya resident of house no.92, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.                                                                ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

1.M/s Simple Technologies through its proprietor Sh.Aseem Sharma c/o Shop No.343, Mugal  Canal Market, Karnal.

2. Dell India Private Limited, Divyashree Greens, ground Floor # 21/1, 12/2A, 13/1AChallanghatta,  Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore- 560071, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

.

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Virender Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 ex parte.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that he purchased  a Dell  Inspiron 1525  Laptop  manufactured by Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.2 . After the expiry of warranty provided by Op no.2, he approached OP No.1 for extended warranty of the said laptop.  On the assurance given by OP no.1 and as per terms and conditions of OP no.2, he   agreed to  buy the extended warranty for his laptop and made payment of Rs.14,500/-  to OP No.1 on  6.8.2012 for extended warranty and accordingly   a receipt was issued by OP No.1. for extended warranty of one year for complete cover plus NBD.  After 3-4 months, of the extended warranty the  problem occurred in the laptop.  He went to the service centre of Ops and service centre replaced the key board , hard  disk device as well as DVD writer.  After few days,  on 17.1.2013 he met with an accident and laptop fell down on the road and  a car passed over  the same, due to which the same was damaged.  He again, approached the service centre of Ops,  but employees  of the service centre assured him  to take the damaged laptop to  service centre at Chandigarh. Thereafter, he approached the service centre for repair of the laptop  but the service centre after examining told that laptop could not be repaired and the OP No.2 would replace the same with a new laptop. Service Centre again called him  on  25.2.2013 and handed over the laptop assuring that the team of OP No.1 would  contact him,  collect the damaged laptop and replace the same within seven days.  In March, 2013, he received a call from Bangalore from one Manoj, who confirmed that case of  unit replacement of the  laptop was approved and the OP no.2 was ready to replace the same with a new one, if under warranty.  However, after waiting a lot he contacted the service centre at Chandigarh, but he was told that there was no warranty and the case regarding replacement of the  laptop was closed.  He again approached  OP no.1 to provide service and accordingly OP N o.1 sent  e-mail to OP no.2,  but on  18.03.2013 OP No.2 refused to replace the laptop and sent reply  of e-mail that dell could not provide free service warranty.  Then he requested Ops to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- which was paid by him for one year extended warranty but, Ops refused to refund that amount also. The complainant has sought directions for Ops to replace his laptop under extended warranty  and pay Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in services and Rs.5500/- for  litigation expenses.

 

2.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 put into appearance and  filed written statement. It has been admitted  that warranty of laptop was extended by OP no.1, on behalf of OP no.2 being dealer of OP no.2 and receipt  regarding payment was issued to the complainant in that regard. The other allegations made  in the complaint against OP no.1 have been denied.

 

3.                OP No.2 filed separate written statement disputing the ;claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that the complainant had purchased Dell  Laptop bearing service tag No. 2QT6Y1S from OP No.1, who is not authorized  by Op no.2 to sell the said imported system in India. The said system was originally invoiced in  Australia and   imported to India via  parallel channel and sold to complainant without any knowledge of  Dell India Pvt.Ltd.  The complainant has not provided any details of system and got  warranty extended from OP No.1 by  making payment of Rs.14,500/- .The OP no.1 contacted OP no.2 for warranty and then OP no.2 received a sum of Rs.7894/- for the extended warranty. The complainant contacted OP no.1 on 3.9.2012 and  Hemant Kumar on behalf of OPNo.1 contacted OP no.2 stating that system  was having issues with  keyboard.  Engineer visited the dealer i.e. OP no.1 and resolved issue under SER  No. 790507752840. It has further been submitted that on 18.1.2013 Mr. Aseem Sharma contacted OP no.2 on behalf of OP no.1 and reported that system was damaged in an accident  and demanded replacement of the system.  On 28.1.2013 OP no.2 denied for system replacement as the system was out of warranty over a long  period of  three years.  The complainant contacted on 6.3.2013 as the service centre  found that the said system was  beyond  economical repair and warranty was updated incorrectly by the dealer as the system was out of warranty.  The dispute was between the complainant and dealer and OP no.2 had no role to play in it,  as the dealer is not an authorized sale affiliate to resell the dell products. It has further been averred that OP no.2 informed the complainant that system did not  have international warranty  and service support in India as the same was neither manufactured nor sold by Dell India Pvt.Ltd. in India and as such Dell India Pvt. Ltd. was not responsible for providing any service/replacement to the complainant. The OP No.2 was not involved in the transaction, which  was between dealer and complainant. It has also been alleged that the complaint has been filed by the complainant purely out of greed and   malicious intention  just to extract compensation  from OP no.2 without any deficiency in services.  The complainant has not come with clean hands and the complaint is abuse of the provisions of the Consumer  Protection Act.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.

 

5.                On the other hand in evidence of OP No.2, affidavit of Sapandeep Kapoor authorized representative has been filed.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.                 As per allegations of the complainant he had purchased one Dell Inspiron 1525  Laptop  of OP No.2 and after expiry of warranty,  provided by OP No.2, he got warranty extended for one year on 6.8.2012 by making payment of Rs.14,500/-  to OP No.1 On 17.1.2013, he met with an accident and laptop fell down on the road  and a car passed over the same, due to which same was damaged. It has further been alleged that he approached the OPs for repair or replacement  of the said laptop but,  OP  No.2 refused.

 

8.                The OP No.2 has admitted that it received an amount of Rs.7894/- from OP No.1 dealer regarding extension of warranty period of Laptop of complainant.  However, it has been submitted that laptop of the complainant was originally invoiced     in Australia and imported to India via parallel channel and sold to complainant without any knowledge of OP No.2. The said laptop did not have international warranty and service support in India. The OP No.1 was not authorized to re-sell such Dell products. It has also been submitted that OP No.1 contacted OP No.2 on 18.1.2013 and reported about the damaged condition of the laptop in an accident and the complainant also approached OP no.2  in that regard. On 28.1.2013 device for replacement  as system was out of warranty for long period of three years and was beyond economical repair. 

 

9.                       Thus, from the contents of the written statement this fact stand admitted by OP No.2 that warranty  of laptop  of the complainant was extended by OP no.1 after getting Rs.14500/-  and out of that amount an amount of Rs.7894/- was paid to OP No.2.  It is pertinent to note that Op No.2 never  raised any objection regarding extended warranty period and accepted amount of Rs.7894/-  sent to it by OP No.1 for that purpose. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of OP no.2 to raise objection that laptop was unauthorizedly sold to complainant and OP No.1 illegally and unauthorizedly extended warranty. Consequently, OP no.2 was bound  to comply with the terms and conditions of the warranty.

 

10.                         The learned counsel for the complainant laid stress on the contention that  extended warranty of one year period was for complete  cover  +  NBD,  therefore, OPno.2 was bound to replace  the system/laptop of the complainant, which was damaged in an accident.

 

11.               The matter in controversy boils  down into a narrow compass and the main question  which arises for consideration is  whether a manufacturer or dealer giving warranty for a particular   period or extended warranty of an item for further period is bound to replace or repair any damage caused to such item on account of some accident.

 

11.               As per dictionary meaning “warranty” means a  written guarantee given to purchaser  of a new appliance, automobile or other item by the manufacturer or dealer, usually specifying that manufacturer will render repairs or replace the defective parts free of charges for a stated period of time.  As per Oxford Learners dictionary, warranty is a guarantee given to buyer of an article promising to repair or replace,  it if necessary.

 

12.               Thus, as per plain meaning of “warranty” manufacturer or dealer is required to repair or replace defective parts free of charges  for any item sold to a buyer, during the specified period of warranty. Warranty of a particular item for specified period, does not cover accidental damages to such item even during the period of warranty. Warranty of an item for specified period and insurance of such item are two different things. Warranty is for repair of any defect during the warranty period, whereas insurance covers the accidental damages.

 

13.               Admittedly, the laptop of the complainant was damaged in an accident and the defect had  not occurred  in natural  course of use.  Such accidental damage is not covered by warranty. Copy of the letter sent on behalf of OP no.2 to the complainant Ex.C3 also indicates that complainant was informed that damage which had occurred in his system was not covered under the warranty as it is one of the warranty exclusion. Under such, circumstances, Ops were not bound to repair or replace laptop of the complainant which was damaged on account of an accident.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

 

14.               In view of the foregoing discussion we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:29.07.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

                  

Present         Sh.Virender Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 ex parte.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 29.7.2015.

 

Announced
dated:24.07.2015                                                                             

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present         Sh.Virender Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 ex parte.

                   Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the OP No.2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:29.07.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.