Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Member
The complaint petition is filed under the Consumer Protection Act at the instance of the Complainant on the allegation of deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite parties in a consumer dispute on deficiency in service. The Complainant brought this case against M/s Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. (OP3), their authorized dealer M/s Lalani e-Tech City (OP1) and the authorised service centre M/s Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (OP2) for award of refund of price of the laptop alongwith compensation on the ground of disservice.
The brief facts of the complain as averred by the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Lenovo laptop on 03.07.2019 with serial number PF1NTB2R model number SYS LT LENOVO 81DE02W8IN for Rs.36,500/- vide invoice number ECM1920/3226 from the authorized dealer OP1 at Kolkata. Due to malfunctioning of the Laptop i.e problem with the touchpad, key board, blue screen. black screen, shut down problem etc, the Complainant lodged a complaint. On 18.05.2020 a complaint call was logged by Complainant when OPs put false signature of Complainant on the job sheet. But the OPs neither replaced the existing laptop with a new one nor replaced it with a properly functional one to solve the problem of to the satisfaction of the customer. The OP1 dealer tried to solve the problem online but failed.
Hence Complainant brought the instant case for replacement or refund of price of the laptop alongwith compensation.
The OP1 appeared to contest the case and filed W/V. It appears from records and postal track report that the S/R in respect of OP3 was completed on 09.02.2023 and the same for OP2 is found to be ‘Left without instruction’ and again ‘Door locked’. In want of filing W/V by OP2 & OP3, the case has been running ex-parte against them as per daily order dated 24.03.2023 and 28.03.2023.
The OP 1 adduced evidence in the similar line of their written version that no specific allegation is resting against them who were mere resellers of the laptop and not liable for any alleged manufacturing defect and hence the instant complaint is not maintainable against OP1. The reseller as a goodwill gesture use to coordinate with the OEMs or their service centres, in case any defect crops up. Moreover the OEM is the provider of the warranty as per Warranty Card and nor the reseller i.e. OP1. The OP1 in its W/V stated inter alia that the Complainant purchased the laptop from them but the Complainant informed about some problems of the laptop. Accordingly, they advised him to inform the matter to the OP2/OP3 Company. Hence, no iota of complaint is resting against the OP1 in the instant petition and there is no liability on the part of OP1, a reseller, whatsoever in the matter of instant complaint.
As the case had been running ex-parte against OP 2 and OP3 and on contest by OP1, hence the instant dispute was examined in the light of evidences and available records and documents as annexed.
The main points for determination of this case are that :-
- whether the complaint is a consumer or not.
- whether there are deficiencies in services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs and
- whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for or not.
The decision with reasons on all the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
As the Complainant purchased a Lenovo laptop on 03.07.2019 for Rs.36,500/- vide invoice number ECM1920/3226 from the OP1 authorized dealer of the OP3 company, hence the complainant is undoubtly a consumer as per definition of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 u/s 7(i).
It appears that the laptop of the Complainant has been checked and repaired by OP2 service centre for the keyboards as per service report dated 13.01.2019 duly accepted by Complainant by subscribing his signature. Again as per service report dated 18.05.2020 it is found that system of the laptop camera that was rectified. However this report is found unsigned and digitally filled up for all columns and rows including the customer remarks as “very good service’. The Customer feedback form dated 06.08.2020 was found ticked with ‘10’ upon a scale of 1-10 without any signature. Therefore these prefilled documents are doubtful, including alleged manufacturing of signature of the complainant about it’s genuineness specially when opposed by the complainant which remained unchallenged by other side. A lot of exchange of correspondences are found on record between both the sides starting from reporting of laptop problems vide email dated 18.06.2020, 19.06.2020, 20.06.2020, and 21.06.2020 and 24.06.2020 but no proof about attending those complaints were exhibited by the OPs which were well within the warranty period. Though at this stage vide email dated 25.07.2022, the OP3 company denied having any valid system warranty on this laptop, but there is no plausible reason available regarding attending complaints by OPs since 19.06.2020, when the warranty was valid. During the corresponding time the Complainant had also been a student as per money receipts from a prominent institution preparing students for competitive examinations thereby leading to an element of mental agony causing for complainant. .
The OP1 further stated that service engineer of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. informed the OP1 on email dated 25.07.2022 that problem of the laptop had been solved but as a gesture call it would be re-attended. But no outcome of such gesture cal is on record. During hearing, the Complainant submitted his deposition supporting with an affidavit and exhibited relevant invoice of purchasing of the laptop and also exhibited relevant emails and letters vide exhibits on record to establish the fact that he made several correspondence with OP3 company regarding issues of problem with touchpad, key board, blue screen. black screen, shut down problem etc of his laptop and requested for repair or replacement by a trouble free laptop of same model or refund thereof. So after closing evidences, respective lawyers’ advancement of arguments, BNAs and perusal of records, it appears that in this case it is a fact that the Complainant purchased the laptop from OP1 and reported about various problems in 2020 from time to time in that laptop to the OP 2 and OP3. Moreover the Complainant exhibited the invoice to establish the fact that he purchased the Laptop for Rs.36,500/- It is also evident form Exhibits e-mails and from the deposition of the OP1 that the Complainant reported the malfunctioning of the laptop to the OPs from time to time and requested to solve the problem and subsequently asked to replace the laptop as problems did not get resolved. The depositions went uncontested by OP2 and OP3. Hence, on the principle of preponderance of probability of the evidence of the available parties we are inclined to believe the fact brought by the Complainant regarding laptop problems as sacrosanct.
So, we find justification for bringing the instant case against the OPs.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant case be and the same is hereby allowed on ex-parte basis against OP Nos. 2 and 3 and on contest against OP1.
- The OP3 company cum Original Equipment Manufacturer is directed to replace the said laptop with a brand new laptop of same or equivalent model free of any trouble and free of cost OR in the alternative, refund the price of the said laptop for Rs.36,500/- to the Complainant.
- In addition, the OP2 and OP3 are directed, jointly and/or severally, to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.
The OP2 and OP3 are further directed, jointly and/or severally, to satisfy this award within 45 days from the date of this order, I/D, a simple interest @ 9% per annum be added with the price of the laptop and compensation and cost aforesaid failing which the Complainant is entitled to take the recourse of law.
To supply free copy of this Final Order to the parties as per CPR.
The Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
