STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Prop. Shreeram Balaji Enterprises

251 Vivek Vihar, Near P.N.B. Bank, Ranipur Mod Haridwar ……Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1 Versus

1. Sh. Shailendra Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ganesh Singh R/o Collectrate Residential Colony Block-C, Type-2, Quarter No. G-1 Roshanabad, Haridwar ….…Respondent No. 1/ Complainant

2. Dell India Pvt. Ltd.

12/1, 12/2-A, 13/1A, Divya Shree Greens, Coramangla Ring Road, Chhilaghata, Varthoor, Hubli, Banglore/ Banglooro Karnataka ….…Respondent No. 2/ Opposite Party No. 2 Sh. Brijesh Bhatia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Shreegopal Narson, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Sh. Anil Maikhuri, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 04/04/2022

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

It is an appeal against the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum (now District Commission), Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 23 of 2013 styled as Sh. Shailendra Kumar vs. Prop. Shreeram Balaji Enterprises and another, wherein and whereby the claim of the complainant/ respondent No. 1 was allowed.

Revision Petition No. 16 / 2019

2. In this appeal, the appellant has taken the ground that the impugned order of the District Commission is against the facts and mandate provisions of law, the responsibility to repair the laptop was lying with the company; the appellant was simply a seller of the goods. Sufficient proof about defective service of laptop was not filed by the complainant; basic responsibility to repair the laptop during warranty period was lying with the company, but this relevant fact was ignored by the District Commission; there was no manufacturing defect which existed in the laptop; and the respondent No. 1 / complainant get uploaded an illegal / pirated software for which the appellant is not responsible; the complainant never lodged his complaint with the company and ignoring the relevant facts as well as terms and conditions of the bill, the claim was allowed;

therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

3. We have heard both the sides and perused the record / file of the District Commission.

4. The basic question for deciding the appeal is whether the appellant has committed deficiency in service. The first ground raised by the appellant is that the manufacturing company is only liable for any deficiency in laptop and the appellant as a seller is not liable at all. We don’t agree with the above arguments as he being an agent / dealer of the company (respondent No. 2), sold the goods and received the amount; issued the bill on the letter of his firm to the complainant, which is undisputed. For the consumer, the appellant is primarily responsible for the deficiency in service alongwith the manufacturing company. The appellant was an agent of the company and when a complaint about deficiency was made to the seller, he cannot escape himself from the responsibility raising the ground that the complainant did not approach the manufacturer on the company’s tollfree number complaining the deficiency of the laptop. The appellant was under an obligation to remove the defects in the goods either by himself or through the manufacturer. The complainant always has a right to rectify the defects of the goods purchased either by the seller or the manufacturer. The appellant defence in this respect is not tenable / sustainable.

5. The basic question between the parties to be decided is as to what was the warranty; according the bill of the laptop issued by the seller; the warranty was against the manufacturing defects of the hardware, i.e. the laptop, the bill itself reflects that there was no warranty about the software installed therein. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that Window 7 version of software was initially uploaded in the laptop. There is no documentary proof about the fact that the software Window7 ever created a