Order-16.
Date-01/09/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Sourav Duttaby filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased a Dual Sims Lenovo Tablet Set [A-3000] 59374689, Sl. No. HB04Y4H4 vide Invoice No. ALCO/M2700/1314 dated 02.02.2014 for Rs. 14,400/- from op no.2 and Tablet Set carries a warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase and complainant purchased the Tablet set for complainant’s study purpose.
But after purchasing the said Tablet set and just after using the same complainant found that the aforesaid Tablet set developed defect around last week of September 2014 and on 05.11.2014 complainant handed over the defective Tablet set to op no.1 for servicing on receipt of Tablet set op no.1 issued a job card No. 5279 and on the same day on 05.11.2014 after one hour receipt of Tablet set the op no.1 phoned complainant and told that 2 sims slot are damaged inside and the cost of repairing charge sum of Rs. 8,500/- will be borne by complainant.Complainant submitted that ops have adopted unfair trade practice and ops demanded Rs. 8,500/- for repairing charge within warranty period.
Complainant drew the matter under attention to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Kolkata Central Regional Office for redressal and the AD of CA&FBP made his best efforts to solve the problem but the mediation failed.So, complainant was advised by the Asstt. Director, CA&FBP to approach legal Forum for redressal of grievance.So, ops are deficient and negligent in service and ops have resorted unfair trade practice and for which complainant has prayed for replace of the Tablet set by a new one with a warranty of one year or to refund an amount of Rs. 14,400/- as cost of the said Tablet set and compensation.
On the other hand op no.3 M/s. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. by filing written version submitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant against the service centre of the answering op no.3 on 05.11.2014 just after 9 months from the date of purchase of the tablet set in question.So the Tablet set in question was delivered to the complainant perfectly in good condition at the time of purchase and used the same for 9 months and 3 days without any problem or trouble and in fact there was no manufacturing defect of the Tablet set of the complainant.
Fact remains that complainant brought his Tablet set to the authorized Service Centre of the op no.3 on 05.11.2014 and same was duly attended by checking the tablet thoroughly and found that two pins in the 2nd Sim slot were broken and it was identified as Customer Induced Damage (CID) and the same was communicated to the complainant through E-mail on the same day and also over phone by the service centre officials within an hour on the same day and explained to the complainant that the Tablet set shall not be repaired under warranty due to the reason that the Tablet set is physically damaged.
However, the engineers of the service centre offered to provide service on chargeable basis for which the complainant denied and took delivery of the tablet set in question.So, there was no deficiency on the part of the ops, but only to get relief when warranty does not cover such a damage caused by the complainant.Complainant adopted this procedure for getting advantage.Though complainant was fully aware of the warranty, therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Fact remains that the tablet set was physically damaged and it was detected that it was Customer Induced Damage (CID) for which service centre charged for repairing and in fact all the allegations as made by the complainant is false and fabricated for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper assessment of the complaint and written version and also considering the argument as advanced by the complainant and the Ld. Lawyer for the ops, it is undisputed fact that complainant purchased the said Lenovo Tablet Set on payment of Rs. 14,400/- on 02.02.2014.
It is also undisputed fact that complainant reported about the problem of the Tablet set only on 05.11.2014 to the Service Centre i.e. op no.2 and op no.2 forthwith after inspection reported that the table set damage was caused by the customer for not properly handling Pins so the 2nd sim slot were broken and it was identified as Customer Induced Damage (CID) and the same was communicated to the complainant through E-mail on the same day.
It is specifically mentioned by the Ld. Lawyer for the op that .Warranty does not cover..In the event of failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, modification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural disaster, power surges, improper maintenance, or use not in accordance with the product information materials and from the perusal of this clause, it is indisputably clear that the Warranty under which the liability of the answering op is fixed cannot extend the service under warranty of the Tablet in question which was prima-facie found to be physically damaged condition and so it’s repair/replacement is rightly denied by the Service Centre for repair atFree of Cost for repaid under warranty.
However, the service engineer of the authorized service centre of the answering op was willing to provide the required services on chargeable basis that was not accepted by the complainant for which the present complaint is false.So, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op.
No doubt after considering the argument of the complainant, we find that he is a student and he has been studying he has used the said Tablet set over 9 months.But subsequently it is found that it is not working when it was submitted to the Service Centre, Service Centre who reported that 2 pins of 2nd sim slot was damaged/broken.But complainant used it properly and he had been using the same for 9 months without any damage.Then how it was damaged and it was not the fault of the complainant.Invariably there are some weaknesses in the 2 pins of 2nd sim slot for which it was damaged but not damaged by the complainant.
Considering the entire materials, we are convinced that this complainant as a student used the tablet set without any interruption for 9 months and above.Thereafter the 2 pins of 2nd sim slot was found broken.In this regard after consulting authenticated books of computer technology and particularly the hardware theorization of different tabs, it is found that sim slots are generally broken if at the time of manufacturing there is some weakness in sim slot, otherwise there is no scope for breaking of any sim slot.At the same time we have gathered from our past experience that in many cases the first or 2nd sim slot of the Lenovo products are often found damaged or broken during use.But the Lenovo Company has not taken any proper step for taking such proper technological help in this regard to remove such sort of weakness of pins of sim slot in their product.But they always say if any defect is found that same is caused by the user i.e. customer and they always note it as Customer Induced Damage and that is common report in almost all the cases.
After considering the position of the sim slot inside the Tablet set and also placing of sim slot and further the technological aspect we find that there is no scope for damaging the pins of sim slot by the customer or by the purchaser or by the user and in this case it is known to all that Tablet set is used by many persons sim is being changed and battery is being and changed by the customer and in fact 2 pins of 2nd sim slot point or battery points are inbuilt theorization and there is no scope for breaking the same by the customer if there is no weakness in respect of the said pins and in this regard we have also read some chapters of the technology from different authors’ book from internet and we have gathered that sim slot points are inbuiltone and there is no scope of damaging the same by the customer or the user only for removing or placing sim.If it is not otherwise handled by screw driver etc. for any purpose, it cannot be damaged.
Most interesting factor is that in this case there is no expert opinion on the part of the op’s service centre that actually sim slot pin and 2 pins of 2nd sim slot is damaged due to apply of force and another factor is that this complainant is a student using the same for 9 months and he is well aware of the fact how to place the sim slot, how to remove the sim and placing the sim slot, so that pin cannot be damaged.In reality the product that sim slot point was weak at the time of production for which it was damaged.But it is common practice of the Lenovo Company and HCL Company to deny their defect in respect of product, the weakness of the item produced by them and it is their common habit and in earlier one occasion this Sony Company took such sort of defence and in that case the complainant is a lawyer and in that case this Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- and that was confirmed up to National Commission and this Sony Company handed over the money to the complainant and it is our past experience.
Service provider must be honest in respect of their explanation.But we have gathered very recently after handling huge cases that manufacturers are always denying their liabilities shifting their liabilities upon the customer by alleging for customer’s misuse it is damaged. But this theorization is also adopted in this case.But we have gathered that damage was caused not by the complainant and there is no such proof that damage was caused due to use of any foreign articles and for such foreign articles forced the 2 pins of 2nd sim slot was damaged.Only their common practice is that it is caused for CID that is Consumer Induced Damage and such sort of mere opinion does not justify that consumer caused that damage because there is no such mark of violence inside the Tablet set that after such violation this pin of 2nd sim slot was damaged.
Very recently in 2 cases we pointed out that there are defects invariably in respect of certain product of car of TATA and that was ultimately cured by the TATA Company and after lapse of 2 months it was circulated in the newspaper by the TATA Company that certain product of that year bears some defects in respect of starting problem and all the customers were directed to place the car to TATA Service Centre for change of that part.
In the present case we are convinced to hold that there was such weakness in the pin of sim slot for which 2nd sim slot of that Tablet set was damaged.No doubt wear and tear is part of damage but in respect of the pin head of the battery or the sim slot in respect of computer related items must be of high quality with such fitment, otherwise there is every chance of damage of the said pin point and even if it is properly used by the customers and no doubt Lenovo must have to think over the matter to take such step that in future sim slot pin point must be more scientific and at the same time with more strength so that only by placing the sim slot point cannot be damaged and in the present case we have gathered that the 2nd sim slot pin was broken as there was some weakness of that product in respect of that item.But op company does not want to repair the same because it is their new business policy how to collect money during warranty period though warranty was there in respect of the present Tablet set and fact remains that complainant already used the same for 9 months and still there is another 3 months for expiry of the warranty period then why the op shall have to refuse only by showing that it is caused for CID that is Consumer Induced Damage.Such an opinion is not based on any technological expert report made by the op Lenovo Company.No engineer or expert member of the company accepted the Tablet set and observed any such opinion.
So, we are convinced that there was no fault on the part of the complainant and the damage of 2 pins head of 2nd sim slot was due to weakness of the manufacturer and in fact the pinhead was not properly manufactured and that is why during use it was damaged.But it can be mentioned that worldwide experts already pointed out that the computer related goods must be of such a nature that the point which are generally used by the customer or the purchaser for placing sim slot or other point the power point and head phone point etc. must be free from any defect and those points must be manufactured by the company in such a manner that even after use those points must not be damaged.But pin head may be damaged for use and if it is damaged during warranty period, in that case the manufacturer shall have to replace those points i.e. pin points and in the present case we have gathered that for continuous use of the said sim slot by the complainant invariably it may be damaged that means quality of the pin head is very weak for its birth.
At the same time ops have not alleged that there is mark and violation or force made by the complainant at the time of placing the pin head or any foreign articles like screw driver etc.So, we are convinced that fault was not on the part of the complainant.Invariably there is some manufacturing weakness and that weakness was detected after use and for which complainant as purchaser or consumer cannot be held liable.But it is the duty of the op company like Lenovo to replace the same when warranty was there and their common defence is that it is caused for CID (Consumer Induced Damage) cannot be accepted.But it is one kind of negligence and deficient manner of service and at the same time deceitful manner of trade.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get a relief and redressal as prayed for against the op particularly the manufacturing company the Lenovo,on the ground warranty period is there when that was submitted with such defect and Lenovo company is duty bound to repair the same and make it free from all defects and to handover it after proper repairing without any further delay.
In the result, complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against op no.3 and is allowed exparte against op nos. 1 & 2 without any cost.
Op no. 3 is hereby directed to repair that Tablet set of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same from the complainant at a free of cost and shall have to give another 3 months warranty from the date of making the Tablet set fit after repairing.
If op fails to comply the same in that case op nos. 2 & 3 shall have to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and that is also within one month from the date of expiry of the above one month for repairing and handing over the said set to the complainant.
Op nos. 2 & 3 are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly as per spirit of the order within stipulated time failing which op nos. 2 & 3 shall be prosecuted u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon them.
