Haryana

Jind

CC/15/112

Surender Redhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

I Solution Op 1 And Lenovo India Ltd. Op 2 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh D.S. Bisla

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 105 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 12.8.2015
   Date of final order: 17.5.2016 

Surender Redhu s/o Sh. Ramkesh Redhu r/o H.No.488 Housing Board Colony, Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
I Solutions,3 Nehru Park Opp. Rani Talab, Jind through its Proprietor/partner/authorized person.
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office Fems Icon, level-2, Doddenakund village Marathhalli outer ring road, Marathhalli post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore 560037 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. D.S. Bisla Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Lenovo Laptop 5942242113/4/1TB/DOS for a sum of Rs.28,953/- vide invoice No.386 dated 16.3.2015 from opposite party No.1. At the time of purchasing the above said Laptop the opposite party No.1 told about the offer of a free dongle with this Laptop which the complainant can avail this offer by registering the invoice on the 
            Surender Redhu Vs. I solutions etc.
                        …2…
website of opposite party No.2. The complainant immediately registered the invoice of the aforesaid Laptop on the website of opposite party No.2 and in reply a message about dongle has been fluctuated and as per instructions mentioned in the message he sent his mobile number 9813950003 to 53636. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the company will contact him on mobile number and will confirm his address and free dongle will be delivered at his address. But till today no message or call has been received by the complainant from the company regarding delivery of dongle. The opposite party No.1 again provided the contact number of Sh. Sunil Batra who is a authorized person of the opposite party No.2.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted  aforesaid  Sunil Batra on his contact number  several times but all time he always gave false excuses to him like ‘the dongle is not in stock’.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation  on account of mental pain and physical harassment as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 10.11.2015. 
3.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 has appeared and filed the  written statement  stating in the preliminary objections i.e.  the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On 
            Surender Redhu Vs. I solutions etc.
                        …3…
merits, it is contended that  the complainant never registered the invoice on the website of answering opposite party. The answering opposite party has not  offered any scheme  with the opposite party No.1 regarding delivery of dongle free of cost. The allegations regarding fluctuated dongle are totally false. The answering opposite party never cheated the complainant at any time. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of tax invoice/sale invoice Ex. C-2 and copies of document Ex. C-3 and C-4 and closed the evidence.   On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Samik Sen Gupta Ex. OP-1 and  copy of  Resolution Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The opposite party No.1 is already ex-parte. The Ld. Counsel of the complainant, who is complainant also argued that he has purchased a Lenovo Laptop and there was offer from the opposite parties that on purchase of the said Laptop the Company will provide a dongle free of cost. The Ld. Counsel of complainant argued mainly on Ex. C-4 i.e. get upto Rs.1500/- off on dongles of Airtel Co. bought with a Lenovo Laptop. As per version of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant, the company should have provided a dongle free of cost on the purchase of Lenovo Laptop. 
            Surender Redhu Vs. I solutions etc.
                        …4…
6.    On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of the opposite party No.2 strongly opposed and argued that there was no such offer. Moreover if there have been any offer then the same is of Rs.1500/- off, on purchase of Airtel dongle bought with the Lenovo Laptop. The Ld. Counsel of opposite party No.2 also argued that the complainant has not bought the Airtel dongle along with the Laptop as is evident from the bill Ex. C-2 and the company is not liable to provide dongle free of cost to the complainant. 
7.    We are of the considered view that Ld. Counsel of complainant has not been able to prove his claim of free offer without purchasing the Airtel dongle with the Laptop. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 17.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

                Surender Redhu Vs. I solutions etc.
                        
Present:  Sh. D.S. Bisla Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.

              Arguments heard. To come up on 17.5.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  16.5.2016

Present:  Sh. D.S. Bisla Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  17.5.2016