Date of Filing: 22.10.2018
Date of Order: 15.12.2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Tuesday the 15th day of December, 2020
C.C.No. 403 /2018
Between
N. Praveen kumar Varma,
S/o Late Vikram Dev Varma,
Aged about 58 year,
R/o: H.No. 16-2-835/A/28,
Aruna Nilyam, 1st Floor, Karan Bagh,
Saidabad, Hyderabad – 400 059
….Complainant
And
- Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd,
Regd. Office Ferns Icon, Level-2 Fernz, Icon,
Doddenakunda Village,
Marathhalli Outer Ring Road,
Marathhalli Post, KR Puram Hobli,
Bangalore- 560037
rep. by managing director.
- Regenerisis (India) Pvt Ltd.
1-2-64/1/2, 2nd floor,
Nandanavanam complex,
Behind Brand Factory,
Park lane, Secunderabad – 5000 03.
Rep by director
- M/s. Computer Collections,
Chenoy Trade Centre,
Park lane, Secunderabad – 5000 03
Rep by its manager
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. M. Rangaiah
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1 : Mr. K.V Om Prakash
O R D E R
(By Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT on behalf of the Bench)
1. This Complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging that Laptop purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.3 shop manufactured by opposite party No.1 has got a manufacturing defect as opposite party No.2 being authorized service center of the product manufactured by the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the defect.
2. The complainants case in brief is that on 28.08.2017 he purchased a Laptop manufactured by opposite party no.1 company from opposite party No.3 dealer of said product , for a total sale consideration of Rs. 38,900/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand nine hundred only) in the second week of September 2017. The complainant faced problem of multiple screens on the screen of Laptop. Immediately he got registered a complaint with opposite party No.3 who advised him to hand over the product to opposite party No.2 authorized service center. Opposite party No.2 after collecting the Laptop told the complainant that there was software problem and delivered to the complainant reporting that the problem was rectified. The complainant reluctantly collected Laptop as he was upset because the product developed problem within a month of purchase. The requests of the complainant to replace the product with another one was not conceded by opposite party No.2 and convinced the complainant to accept the same product, since the problem of software with the product was rectified and assured that in feature there will not be any problem with the product. Opposite party No.3 also expressed inability to consider the request of complainant to replace the product. After taking back delivery of the laptop the complainant started using it but again on 22.04.2018 the laptop abruptly stopped functioning while he was conducting Yoga Class demonstration at Anakapalle. The complainant was forced to stop the classes return back to Hyderabad and delivered the Laptop opposite party No.2 on 24.04.2018 explaining seriousness of problem faced by him. He made a demand with opposite party No.2 and 3 either to replace the product with a new one or to refund the cast of the product. The servicing manager of opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to visit on 28.04.2018. The said date the service Engineer of opposite party No.2 told that there was hardware issue with Motherboard of the product and it was replaced asking the complainant to take delivery of the product. The complainant refused to take delivery from opposite party No.2, since he lost confidence in the product and made a request with opposite party No.2 and 3 to replace the product with a new one or refund the cost of it. But they did not agree and under protest he received the product from opposite party No.2.
3. While the complainant was taking Yoga Classes in Karnool on 19.06.2018 USB ports and touch pad was suddenly stopped functioning. Left with no alternative the complainant canceled the trip came back to Hyderabad , and visited opposite party No.2 with the product and explained the seriousness of problems being faced by him with the product. Opposite party No.2 again informed the complainant that there was software issue with the product and that new software was installed and asked the complainant to collect the product. The efforts of the complainant to get back either cost of the or to replace the product were resulted invain. Since opposite party No.2 and 3 did not agree for the same, the complainant collected the Laptop on 20.06.2018. While the complainant was using the Laptop it was again abruptly stopped on 10.08.2018. The complainant realized that the product sold to him, got a manufacturing defect and was cheated with false promises. Hence he got issued a legal notice on 19.08.2018 to all the opposite parties demanding them to refund the cost of the product within 15 days of service of notice. The notice sent to opposite party No.1 retuned with endorsement as addressee, left but he received interim reply dated 27.08.2018 informing that they it will contact for necessary solution , but no one came forward with any solution. Opposite party No.2 and 3 despite service of notices remained silent.
4. The Laptop purchased by the complainant got inherent manufacturing defect and his work was affected very much, his reputation was damaged as product stopped working while demonstrating the classes. He also suffered mental agony apart from loss on financial side. Hence the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs 38,900/- being the cost of product purchased with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of the purchase to September 2018 for 13 months, award a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lack only) for mental agony suffered a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards legal expenses and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand Only) towards TA and DA for the journey from Anakapalle and Karnool in the middle of the work due to account of failure of the product purchased by him.
5. Opposite party No.2 and 3 despite service of notice did not turn up and opposite party No.1 filed a written version denying the allegations that the product sold to the complainant got manufacturing defects. The defense of set out in the written version is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. When complainant repaired that the Laptop was not working it was repaid free of cost under warrantee and the are further willing to repair in future as per warrantee terms. But the complainant demanded to refund the cost and claimed the damages which are beyond the scope of warrantee terms. A Laptop being a complex electronic device is prove to problems and for the same reason warrantee is offered. The problems that were reported by the complainant were immediately attended and repairs / replacement were done free of cost. The Laptop is with complainant and no issue has been reported after it was repaired on last occasion.
6. When the complainant reported screen blinkering issue and TP issue on 13.09.2017 he was requested, for video of the same but there was no response from him. For the issue of call logged on 24.04.2018, the motherboard of the product was replaced and the problem was resolved. The request of the complainant to replace the laptop and refund the amount could not be considered as same is not under the company policy. When the complainant reported the call logged on 20.06.2018 with service request with regard to USB port and touch pad were not functioning properly, the said issue was with regard to software and the same was updated and issue was resolved and delivered the product to the complainant in a functioning condition.
7. To the legal notice of the complainant an interim replay was sent to him asking for the copy of invoice and contact details , but the complainant did not respond. Then a final reply was sent to him on 17.10.2018 requesting to submit invoice copy and offered one time part replacement as a good gesture but there was no response from him. Hence the allegations of the complainant that there was no response to the legal notice is false. The complainant request to refund cannot be considered unless there was determination by service provider that the product was unable to repair. The present complaint is devoid of merits, hence is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the opposite party No.1.
8. The complainant filed a rejoinder to the written version of opposite party No.1 and the substance of the rejoinder is repeatation of material facts mentioned in the complaint.
9. In the enquiry complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating material facts of the complaint and to support the same Exhibited 11 documents. For the opposite party No.1 evidence of its authorize representatives is got filed and the substance of the same is in line with the defense set out in the written version Five documents are exhibited on behalf of opposite party No.1.
10. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions. On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for determination.
- Whether the complainant has made out a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief prayed for,?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled for.?
Point No.1
Undisputed facts are on 28.08.2017 the complainant purchased Laptop manufactured by opposite party No.1 from its dealer opposite party No.3 and opposite party No. 2 is authorize service center of the said product. Within one month from the date of purchases of Laptop the complainant faced problem with its functioning. Normally when the complainant alleges that the product sold to him has got inherent manufacturing defect the onus lies of him to substantiate the same with the evidence of a technical experts of the subject product. In the instant case admittedly there is no evidence of the technical experts who examined the product with report that the product got a manufacturing defective. However it doesn’t mean that the complainant’s allegation that the product bought by him got a manufactured defect is incorrect. As already said the purchase of the subject product by the complainant was on 28.08.2017 under Ex.A1 invoice for a sum of Rs. 38,900/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand nine hundred only). The complainant has categorically stated that in the first week of September 2017 i.e, within two weeks from the date of the purchase, the product abruptly stopped functioning and he handed over the product with opposite party No.2 authorized service center and after examining the product opposite party No.2 told the complainant that there was some software problem and he rectified it and asked the complainant to collect it. This allegation of the complainant is not denied by the opposite party No.1 in the written version as well as in the evidence affidavit filed on its behalf. In fact at Para B , Page 3 of the written version of opposite party No.1 his categorical that as per the service request logged in CRM (Customer Relationship Management), the complainant reported screen bickering issue and T.P issue. So it is evident that by 13 September 2017 i.e, within the third week of the purchase of the product he faced problem.
After collecting the product from opposite party No.2 the complainant again faced problem with it on 22.04.2016 and opposite party No.2 being a authorized service center of it after examining the product on 24.04.2018 told that there was an hardware issue with motherboard and it was replaced and handed over back to the complainant on 28.04.2018. The opposite party No.1 in the written version at Para No. 3 of page 4 also categorically stated that as per the call logged on 24.04.2018, the motherboard of product was replaced and issue was resolved. It is further version of the complainant that after attending the issue by opposite party No.2 on 28.04.2018. While he was using it, it was suddenly stopped working on 19.06.2018. Opposite party No.1 also has mentioned in para H page 5 of written version that as per the calls log dt. 20.06.2018 of service request in regard USB port and touch pad were not functioning properly.
The issue was with regard to software and same was updated and delivered the product back to the complainant. So opposite party No.1 itself has admitted that in a spane of 7 months from the date of purchase of the product it developed problems and stopped functioning on 3 occasions, Unless there was manufacturing defect in the product. It would not have stopped functioning for 3 time in spane of 7 month. Hence in the given circumstances of the case it can be safely said that the product sold to the complainant got manufacturing defect and there is no need of an evidence of technical expert of the product to fortifigs the same. The reason assigned by opposite party No.1 for not considered request of complainant to refund the cost of the product or to replace it is, terms and conditions of the warrantee does not support it. It is not the case the opposite party that the problem developed to the product on the account mishandling on the part complainant. For the product having manufacturing defect either for replacing or for refunding the cost of the product there need not be a clause in the warrantee furnished by the company. Hence the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2
The complainant has suffered disturbance of his work as product stopped functioning , while he was taking classes at different places and effected his reputation apart from financial loss, hence complainant is justified in seeking compensation for mental agony suffered by him apart from refund of the cost of the product with interest. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 38,900/- with interest @12% p.a from 15.09.2017 to the day of payment, and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Time for compliance 45 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 15th the day of December, 2020.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Invoice Bill dt. 28.08.2017.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Customer carry in service call report dt.24.04.2018.
Ex.A3 - Copy of Customer carry in service call report dt. 20.06.2018
Ex.A4 – Copy of Legal notice dt. 19.08.2018
Ex.A5- Copy of Speed post receipt dt. 20.08.2018
Ex.A6- Copy of Regd post receipt dt. 20.08.2018.
Ex.A7- Copy of Post acknowledgment card dt. 23.08.2018
Ex.A8- Copy of Post acknowledgment card dt. 23.08.2018
Ex.A9- Copy of Register post returned by Op1 dt. 29.08.2018.
Ex.A10- Copy of interim reply dt. 27.08.2018
Ex.A11- Copy of Aadhar Card.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1– Copy of Certified copy
Ex.B2 – Copy of Customer carry in service call report dt.24.04.2018.
Ex.B3 - Copy of Customer carry in service call report dt. 20.06.2018.
Ex.B4 – Copy of Final reply dt.17.10.2018
Ex.B5- Copy of Lenovo Limited warrantee.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
