Orissa

Cuttak

CC/9/2018

Pradyot Kumar Routray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Compuserve - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.09/2018

Pradyot Routray,

Plot No.E/128,Sector-7,

C.D.A,Bidanasi,Cuttack-753014.                                                              .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1. COMPUSERVE,

Authorised Dealere of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.,

A.D.Market,Link Road,

Cuttack-12.

 

2. Service Manager,

Lenovo Service Centre,

Authorized Service Centre,

Plot No.233/A,Behind Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswsar,

Dist:Khurda.

 

3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., represented

Through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Having its registered office

At:Ferns Icon,Level 2,

Doddenakund Village,Morathali,

Outer Ring Road,Bengalur-560037,

Karnataka.… Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    18.01.2018

Date of Order:  27.06.2019

 

For the complainant  :    Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1 & 2      :             None.

For the O.P No.3        :     Mr. M.K.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for Redressal of his grievances U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint petition.  The allegation made in the complaint is with regard to deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has purchased a laptop of model No.LT LENOV G5080-E502Q3IH from the authorized dealer of Lenovo i.e. O.P No.1 at Cuttack on 21.1.2007 on payment of Rs.32,000/-.  The O.P No.1 has issued retail invoice on 21.1.2017 indicating the cost to be Rs.32,000/-.  The invoice dt.21.1.2017 is attached.  At the time of the purchase of the laptop the O.P No.1 issued warranty card indicating that the product stood warranty against all manufacturing defect for 1 year as specified in the warranty card.  The warranty card issued by the O.P No.1 is attached.  During the warranty period and after 9 months of use of the aforesaid laptop, the complainant noticed a black spot gradually increasing on the LCD screen/monitor.  After noticing the same the complainant immediately contacted the authorized dealer.  Further the aforesaid fault was also brought to the notice of the manufacturers and the authorized service centre i.e. O.P No.3 and O.P.2 respectively, through E.Maiil on 31.12.17 by the complainant and he requested them either to replace the aforesaid laptop or to refund the cost of laptop.  The copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant is attached.  The O.Ps after receiving the e.mail of the complainant on 4.1.2018 replied that the defect in question in the laptop is neither due to any poor workmanship nor any manufacturing defect, rather the defect in the laptop is due to the accidental damage caused by the complainant.  The copy of the e-mail of the O.Ps is attached.  The O.Ps never physically verified the said laptop regarding its defect and its condition but came to the conclusion that the defect has occurred due to accidental damage.

The complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the laptop, i.e. Rs.32,000/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment by not repairing the laptop and compelling the complainant to run from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2. O.P No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed written version and they were set exparte.  O.P No.3 appeared and through his written version has stated that the problem in the laptop has occurred due to an internal crystal liquid cell damage which is found in the laptop pin question was due to the external pressure put on the laptop by the complainant which is a physical damage caused by the complainant himself and such damages are not covered under warranty.  The complainant was informed by the O.P No.2 that such physical damage has been caused due to an external pressure put on the laptop and was not covered under warranty and also informed that the service would be provided on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to accept the paid service, hence the service was not provided to him.  An extract of the limited warranty terms and a copy of the snapshot showing that the damage on the display has been caused due to an internal crystal liquid cell which is attached as Annexure-2.  The contesting O.P. further stated that the damage in the display was caused due to internal crystal liquid cell damage and the same was due to “Customer Induced Damage (CID).  The Customer Induced Damage issue is out of warranty coverage and there is no question of replacement with a new laptop or refund towards the cost of the laptop.  The laptop was in a good working condition at the time of purchase but thereafter laptop was physically damaged by the complainant.  Since the laptop sold to the complainant has undergone stringent quality checks, ensuring that there are no manufacturing defects as claimed by the complainant,  there is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. and the complainant has failed to prove and place on record any evidence in support of his allegation of deficiency in service and has been making allegations only with the intension of tarnishing the image, reputation and standing of the O.P No.3 as well as to take undue and unfair advantage of  judicial process to gain some undeserved advantage.

The further plea of the O.P No.3 is that it received an E.Mail from the complainant on 31.12.20-17 stating the presence of a black spot on laptop screen/monitor to which the O.P No.3 had promptly replied stating that it was a Customer Induced Damage and the same is not covered under Lenovo warranty terms.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsels of the parties at length, gone through the documents and papers carefully.  The short question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the refusal of the O.Ps in not repairing the laptop during the warranty period on the ground that the problem in the laptop occurred due to external pressure put up on the laptop by complainant is legal and valid.

Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the laptop from the O.P No.1 which is an authorized dealer of Lenovo at Cuttack.During the warranty period and after 9 months use of laptop, the complainant noticed black spot which gradually increased in the LCD screen/monitor.The complainant brought the above facts into the notice of manufacturer and authorized service centre through Email and requested the O.Ps either to replace the laptop or refund the cost of laptop.But the O.P after receipt of the complaint dt.31.12.2017 replied that the defect in question in the laptop is covered under the Accidental Damage Protection (ADP) warranty not covered under the Normal warranty and the system not carries the ADP warranty.The damage in the display was caused due to an internal crystal liquid cell damage was due to Customer Induced Damage.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant in the course of argument argued that how the O.Ps came to conclusion that the defects have occurred due to internal crystal liquid cell damage caused due to Customer Induced Damage without physically verifying the defects and condition of the laptop, as such the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service.
5. The learned counsel for the O.P No.3 on the other hand contends that the black spot had occurred due to an internal crystal liquid cell damage found in the laptop which was due to an external pressure put on the laptop.  So the authorized service personnel denied the repairs and no deficiency in service arises at all and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that during the warranty period the O.Ps without physically verifying the laptop has come to the conclusion that the damage is caused due to external pressure put on the laptop which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

ORDER

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O.P No.3 and ex-parte against O.P No.2. O.P No.1 being the dealer is not liable in this case.  The O.Ps 2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs.32,000/- towards the cost of the laptop, Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 27^th day of June,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                         Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                              President.