Back
Revision Petition No. 16 / 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
First Appeal No. 166 / 2013
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.
First Appeal No. 166 / 2013
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
First Appeal No. 166 / 2013
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 compl
