<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2826/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Lakshman B.GC/o Chandrasekhar N# 30, Behind CPRI Compound,RMV 2nd Stage, New BEL Road,Bangalore – 560094.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ITANTRA# 84, R K Plaza,Opp. Adishakti Temple,New Kantaraj Urs Road,Mysore – 570023.2. HITECH INFOMATIC PVT Ltd.,Lenovo Service,No.91, Ground Loor,2nd Main Road,Opp. Venkateshwar Temple,Domluru Layout,Bangalore – 560071.Advocate – Sri.Harish Kumar R.S<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.81,500/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one Y510 Laptop from OP.1 for a total consideration of Rs.51,500/- on 10.01.2008. Within a span of few days he was unable to utilize the said Laptop, he faced certain problems with DVD ROM. He gave the said Laptop for service to OP for twice or so and though once DVD ROM was replaced the result was one and same. The repeated requests and demands made to OP either replace the said Laptop or refund the cost went in futile. Complainant felt that there is an inherent manufacturing defect with the said Laptop. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. He was made to move from pillar to post to get repaired the said Laptop. Till January 2007 OP are unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 the guarantee on the said Laptop was issued by the manufacturer but the complainant has not made the said manufacturer as a party to this complaint. Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. As and when complainant alleged certain complaints, he was directed to approach OP.2 authorized technical service center. The said DVD ROM was replaced. There was no inherent manufacturing defect with the said Laptop. The problem complainant faced is because of bad handling. Hence OP.1 is not liable to replace the Laptop or refund the cost of the same. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> OP.2 filed separate version mainly contending that they are the company carrying out the business of providing Information Technology, hardware service across India including Lenovo computers and Laptop. There is no direct privity of contract between complainant and OP.2. It is only rendering the service for the said product. Hence they are not liable either to replace the so called defective Laptop or refund the cost. As and when complainant approached them they rectified the defects, replaced the DVD ROM and made it functioning. Having enjoyed the said Laptop for more than 10 – 11 months in the verge of warranty period of one year complainant has come up with the false and frivolous complaint with ulterior motive to get himself illegally enriched. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.2. Among these grounds, OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP have also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Lenovo Y510 Laptop from OP.1 on 10.01.2008 for a total cost of Rs.51,500/- and it carried one year warranty. Now the grievance of the complainant is that within a span of few days he noticed certain inherent defects in the said Laptop with regard to DVD ROM. He immediately approached the OP.1. He was directed to contact OP.2. OP.2 received the said Laptop and replaced the DVD ROM but the result is one and the same. Of course OP.2 admits that as and when complainant brought the said Laptop with some complaints, it was attended to and DVD ROM was replaced. That means to say there is a defect with the said Laptop.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course OP.1 & 2 inter-se wants to transfer the headache against each other. They want to shirk their responsibility and obligation. OP.1 says, as the complainant has not made the manufacturer of the Laptop as a party he is not liable to pay. It is the bounden duty of OP.1 to sell defect free product to the customer that too when he collects more than Rs.50,000/-. When a defect is pointed out he can’t just wash of his hands blaming the manufacturer. It would have been more fair on the part of the OP.1 to receive the said Laptop, send it to the manufacturer or intimate the manufacturer about inherent defect in the said product and would have sorted out the problem faced by the complainant. No such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course OP.2 says it is only the authorize service center for the Lenovo and as and when complainant brought the said Laptop with certain defects it was attended to and DVD ROM was replaced. On the perusal of the complaint as well as the documents produced complainant was made to move from pillar to post for several times. When he approached OP.1 he directed him to OP.2. When he go to OP.2 he throws blame on the manufacturer. So practically OP.1 & 2 made complainant helpless. Though he has invested his hard earned money OP.2 attended to the said defect but it appears it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Mere replacement of DVD ROM is no solution unless the said Laptop is made fully functional.<br /> <br /> 9. On the scrutiny of the defence set out by the OP they want to through blame on the complainant stating that the handling of the said Laptop is not proper, due to the carelessness and negligence of the complainant such problem have arisen. We don’t find force in the said defence. The customer service report produced speaks loudly about the defect found in the Laptop within a span of few months from the date of its purchase. Under such circumstances though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. <br /> <br /> 10. Of course we find force in the contention of the OP.2 that there is no direct privity of contract between them and the complainant. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP.1 either to replace the said Laptop with a brand new defect free set of the same model or refund the cost of the same and take back the defective set. The grievance if any OP.1 had may get it resolved with the manufacturer if so advised. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 is directed to replace the defective Laptop sold to the complainant with a brand new defect free one of the same model for the same cost and take back the defective Laptop. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> If OP.1 fails to replace the same as ordered it is hereby directed to OP.1 to refund the cost of the Laptop Rs.51,500/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and take back the defective Laptop. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />