Ahmedabad: Company, retailer asked to refund laptop cost over deficiency in service

Times News Network

Ahmedabad: A consumer commission has ordered “Dell India Pvt Ltd” to refund the cost of a laptop to a consumer who complained that defects in his machine were not fixed during the warranty period. The commission also ordered the company and the retailer, “Infinity Retail Ltd”, to pay Rs 25,000 compensation to the consumer, Rushi Patel, a resident of Sola, towards mental harassment and litigation cost.

According to Patel’s complaint, he bought the laptop in Sept 2017 and paid Rs 62,730. The machine started malfunctioning, and he asked for troubleshooting. The problems were fixed temporarily. His May 2018 requests for on-site repairs went unanswered.

Patel sued the retailer and the company with the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Rural), in 2018, seeking a refund or replacement of the laptop. The retailer told the commission that he had no role to play in the dispute. The company defended itself by claiming that the issue had been resolved at the consumer’s request, but claimed he later refused reinstallation. It also said the laptop had fallen in Feb 2018, though the reason for the fall was not disclosed. The company denied allegations of not providing service.

After the hearing, the commission said, “In today’s age of internet revolution, a laptop is a very important tool for an academic person. He cannot deposit the laptop for troubleshooting for an indefinite period for such recurring glitches, but the opponent should try to resolve the problem. When it is not possible to solve the issue during the warranty period, it should replace the laptop or refund the amount. But opponents have not given satisfactory replies, nor resolved the problem permanently. The retailer has also not made efforts to resolve the problem, and he cannot escape his liability by claiming that he is only a dealer… The commission opines that there is deficiency in service.”
Since the laptop is more than seven years old, the commission did not find it proper to order a replacement, but held the consumer entitled to recover the refund amount.