Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/289/2021

Richa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Boss Computers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Deepak Aggarwal

21 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	289 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	11.05.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	21.05.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Richa w/o Sh.Vijay Kumar, Resident of House No.3394, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh   

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Boss Computers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 56, Tribune Road, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Director/Proprietor/Partner.

2]  Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Lenovo Service Center), SCO No.85/88, 4^th Floor, Behind Piccadilly Theater, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Director/Proprietor/Partner.

3]  Lenovo India Private Limited, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakund Village Marathhalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru 560037, Karnataka, India through its Managing Director/Director  

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Sh.A.S.Parmar, Adv. proxy for Sh.Deepak    Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

           Sh.Gautam Goyal, Adv. proxy for Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        The case of the complainant precisely is that she purchased one Laptop Lenovo 81VW00CVIN from Op No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, on 19.5.2020 for study purpose of her daughter to attend Online Classes, on making payment of Rs.53,500/- vide Ann.C-1 and it carried one year warranty.  It is stated that soon after purchase, the said Laptop started giving problems regarding camera issue, speaker and when it was reported to OPs they temporarily set the problem without opening any Job Card, but the problems reoccurred time & again.  The complainant sent emails to the OPs highlighting the problems being faced by them in the laptop in question.  It is submitted that even the technical person of the OPs who opened the laptop on 26.2.2021 for repair, failed to set the defect right.  It is submitted that the technicians of the OPs failed to remove the defects in the laptop as a result the studies of her daughter were badly affected.  It is submitted that the OPs did not replace the defective the laptop in question with new one nor responded to the complaints of the complainant about the problems in the laptop. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the cost of the product in question along with interest as well as compensation and legal cost.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OP No.3 put in appearance and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the first issue in the laptop in question was reported only on 23.2.2021 i.e. nearly 9 months after the purchase of the laptop, which indicates that there was no manufacturing defect in the laptop.  It is stated that a qualified engineer of the OP appointed to resolve the issue, checked the laptop and made remarks that additional requisite part and equipment were required and he offered to get the additional parts from the service centre post diagnoses, but the complainant refused to further proceed with the service of the laptop and was adamant on getting replacement.  It is submitted that the complainant refused to let the engineer open and take the camera part and was insistent on replacement of the machine, which was against terms of warranty, as such the engineer left without being able to resolve the issue due to the non-cooperation of the complainant, which is clear from email dated 15.3.2021.  It is also  submitted that answering OP has promptly & proactively offered to repair the laptop but the same was denied by the complainant.  It is further submitted that answering OP has offered to repair the machine under warranty on multiple occasions and is still willing to get the same repaired but the complainant never bothered to get the machine repaired and had been adamant on seeking replacement only.  It is pleaded that the replacement of laptop in question cannot be offered as per terms of warranty since there is no manufacturing defect in the laptop in question. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.3 lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         The OPs No.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.03.2022.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP No.3 made in its written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       The perusal of the record shows that the complainant’s claim is that the laptop in question started giving problems in its functioning soon after its purchase, she approached the service centre of the OPs, whose engineer failed to set the defect right in the laptop.  To this the stand of OP No.3 is that it has offered to repair the machine under warranty on multiple occasions and is still willing to get the same repaired but the complainant never bothered to get it repaired and had been adamant on seeking replacement only. 

 

7]       It is observed that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as job sheet in connection with alleged visits to the authorized Service Centre of OPs and she has not provided any evidence regarding the manufacturing defect in the product. However, we are of the considered view that if laptop in question can be repaired within the warranty, the complainant should have got it repaired first giving a fair opportunity to the OPs to perform their part and if the defect had still persisted, only then the complainant should have approached this Commission.  It seems that the complainant is more inclined towards replacement of the laptop than its repairs. However, in the absence of proven manufacturing defect in the laptop in question or any major or frequent repairs of the laptop in question, we are of the view that the complainant cannot be granted the relief of replacement of the laptop at this stage and the order to repair it free of cost would be just & fair.

 

8]       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to repair the laptop in question by carrying out necessary repair or replacement of part(s), if any, free of cost, and in case the OPs are not in a position to repair it due to non-availability of its part as the laptop in question is of 2020 Model then they shall refund the invoice price thereof to the complainant. There is no order as to cost & compensation.

         This order be complied with by OPs jointly & severally within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

9]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.        

Announced

21.05.2024                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER