1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Lenovo Laptop computer system of Type MTM 81BT006GIN, Sl. No.PF 1357 MB from OP.1 for Rs.48, 000/- vide Invoice dt.10.04.2018.  It is submitted that the Laptop was absolutely in working condition soon after purchase but there was a problem in closing the Laptop due to some manufacturing defect.  It is further submitted that the complainant approached OP No.1 for removal of defect but the complainant was advised that the defect will be removed automatically after use of some days.  As the defect was not removed, the complainant has approached the OP.1 and as per advice of OP.1, the complainant also approached to OP.3, the manufacturer.  Being satisfied, the OP.3 directed OP.2 to attend the defect but nobody helped the complainant even after reminders.  Thus alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying this Commission to direct the Ops either to provide a new laptop computer system or to refund its cost and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                         The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged computer system to the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant being satisfied with the performance and workmanship of the computer had purchased the same and the complainant has admitted in his complaint petition that after few days he found problem in closing the computer system.  It is contended that the complainant has never approached the OP.1 with regard to any problem in the computer system at any point of time.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant, denying any deficiency in service or defect in goods at the time of sale, the OP.1 has prayed this Commission to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost.

3.                         The OP No.2 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this case in any manner.  The OP No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant had lodged one service request bearing No.8012007181 on 23.10.2018 which is almost six months after the supposed date of purchase wherein the OP.3 had requested the complainant to share the snapshots of the laptop and after validating the snapshots it was found that this is a case of Customer Induced Damage (CID).  The OP further contended that as the set damage is not covered under Accidental Damage Protection (ADP), the complainant was requested to visit the nearest SVC for service on chargeable basis as the damage has been caused by the complainant by mishandling the laptop.  The OP.3 further contended that this is a CID case and the damage caused to the system is not covered under the warranty terms of Lenovo.  Thus denying any defect in goods and deficiency in service on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                         Parties who participated in this case have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties in person/through their A/Rs at length and perused the materials available on record.

5.                         In this case, purchase of Lenovo laptop computer model 81 BT by the complainant from OP.1 for a sum of Rs.48, 000/- on 10.04.2018 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that the laptop was absolutely in working condition soon after its purchase but later on he found problem in closing the laptop due to manufacturing defect in the system.  According to the complainant, he approached the OP.1 and requested to remove the defect but the OP.1 advised the complainant to use the system for some days and the defect will be removed automatically.  As the defect was not removed, the complainant again contacted the OP.1 who advised the complainant to lodge complaint with the company electronically.

6.                         The OP.1 in his counter denied having any knowledge about the defect in the system of the complainant.  However, the complainant has lodged complaint on 23.10.2018 as admitted by OP No.3 and OP.3 has requested the complainant to send snapshots of the system for verification and opinion.  The complainant has sent snapshots and the OP.3 experts have come to a conclusion that the defect is customer induced damage which is not coming under accidental damage protection under warranty.  Hence the OP.3 advised the complainant to contact CVC to repair the system on cost paid basis.

7.                         On summing up of the allegations of the complainant and replies of the Ops it was ascertained that closing defect in the handset was found after few days of purchase and the complainant has lodged complaint before the OP.3.  The complainant stated that the Ops did not take any action in spite of complaint and repeated reminders but on the other hand the OP.3 stated that he had advised the complainant to contact nearest CVC for repair of the system on cost paid basis.  It was found that the OP.3 has not adduced any evidence or filed any copy of such advice to the complainant to visit CVC.  In absence of any such evidence it can be hardly believe that the OP.3 had advised the complainant to visit CVC.  Further no such other documents have been filed by OP.3 in order to prove his stand that the defect is customer induced damage.  Expert opinion is necessary to that effect, otherwise his case fails.    In absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the fact that the defect noticed in the system is customer induced damage, it cannot be held that due to misuse of computer system the closing defect arose.  Further after getting complaint, the OP.3 has also not taken up the matter with its CVC for necessary repairs to the system also.  The Ops 1 & 2 could have been instructed by OP.3 to sort out the problem either on cost paid basis or free of cost under warranty.  Being the customer friendly manufacturer, those silly matters could have been done promptly but the OP.3 did not do so.  For such inaction of the Ops the complainant is suffering with the defective set after such a huge investment.  In the above circumstances, it can be safely held that the Ops have sold a defective laptop computer system to the complainant and as such defect could be noticed within few days of its purchase.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get a new defect free laptop computer system of same brand and model from OP.3 in lieu of defective one.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.

8.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to replace the defective laptop computer system if the complainant with a new defect free one of same brand and model and to pay a such of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  There is no case against Ops 1 & 2.

(to dict.)