Date of Filing:25/02/2011

        Date of Order:20/04/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  20^th DAY OF APRIL 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.383 OF 2011

Khalith Ahmed.C,

S/o. Rafeeq Ahmed,

Aged About 30 years,

R/at: # 583, 1^st Floor,

30^th B Cross, Tilak Nagar,

Jayanagar, Bangalore-41.                                              ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1)  Lenovo India Private Limited,

Warranty Services Providers,

Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor,

Badashah Pur Road, Gurgaon-001.

Rep. by Manager.

(2) Lenovo India Private Limited,

Post-Sales Hardware Support,

Ferns Icon, Level-2,

Doddenakund Village,

Marathalli Post, K.R. Puram Hobli,

Bangalore-37,

Rep. by Manager.                                                         …. Opposite Parties

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the laptop with a new one or refund the value of the laptop, pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- are necessary:-

2.       On 21.06.2010 the complainant has purchased a new Lenovo G460 laptop from the laptop shop by paying Rs.33,990/-.  The first opposite party is a warranty service provider and the second opposite party is a Post-sales Hardware Support of the said laptop.  After the purchase of the laptop the complainant noticed that there is a defect in the laptop that a dot/pixel fault found in the LCD screen of the laptop and also the exterior part of laptop i.e., keyboard damage is not up to normal standard.  Hence the complainant went to the Dealer and showed the said defect.  The said Dealer asked the complainant to wait for one week stating that the said defect will be set-right by itself.  As the defect has not set-right the complainant lodged a complaint through e-mail and also orally over phone to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties requested the complainant to furnish some more details which was furnished.  The opposite parties replied stating that the laptop cannot be replaced as it does not come under standard warranty terms and conditions.  The complainant e-mailed to the opposite parties that he will take action against them.  The opposite parties contacted the complainant and offered that they will replace the LCD screen, but it has not been replaced.  Hence the complainant issued a notice on 20.08.2010.  The opposite parties contacted the complainant and stated that they will come back in a short period and the problem will be solved.  As nothing happened the complainant issued notice on 26.11.2010 calling upon them to set-right the defect in the LCD screen and the keyboard. These are manufacturing defects.  Hence the complaint.

2.      In this case the version is filed but it is neither signed by the opposite parties nor verified by the opposite parties, nor a verification affidavit is filed.  But it is signed only by the advocate for the opposite parties.  Hence it is no version at all in the eye of law.

3. The complainant has filed a Memo stating that, the complaint and the averments can be read as his evidence.  Opposite party files affidavit with documents.  Heard the arguments of the opposite parties.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect found in the laptop/is there any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice?

2. What Order?

5.      Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)   :        As per the final Order

                                      for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents of both parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Lenovo G460 laptop machine type No.59033196 and serial No.CBQ2035777 from the Dealer of Lenovo.  The complainant never stated nor produced any documents to show from whom he has purchased?  When he has purchased? And what is the value?  Anyway it is an admitted fact that it was purchased by the complainant and he was using it.  The complainant has stated that “wo” days after the purchase of the laptop he noticed a dot/pixel fault found in the LCD screen of the laptop and also the exterior part of laptop i.e., keyboard damage is not up to normal standard that’s all.  This is a bald piece.  No details are forthcoming.

7.       It is also an undisputed fact that the first opposite party is a warranty service provider and the second opposite party is the post-sales hardware support service providers of Lenovo India Private Limited.  It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant took the laptop to Dealer from where whom had purchased for the rectification of the laptop and the said dealer had asked the complainant to wait for a week.  He waited for seven days and defect continued.  Hence he lodged a complaint with the opposite parties by e-mail that’s all.  Anyway the records prove that the complainant has made some request to the opposite parties and the opposite parties have sought certain explanation from the complainant after furnishing.  Which they found that pixel up to six dot is allowed by the ISO and it is not a manufacturing defect since there was only one dot it could be rectified by replacing the part and the other allegation is that the keyboard some damage if it could be replaced.

8.       Further it is established that the opposite parties wrote to the concerned Lenovo India got the spare parts, but the complainant did not take the laptop for the repair.  Hence they could not replace the defective parts with the defectless part.  Hence they have returned the parts to the company.  Hence it cannot be said that the laptop is having a manufacturing defect.  The complainant was informed by the opposite parties to get the laptop’s defect parts replaced, but the complainant refused to do it.

9.       If it is a manufacturing defect then alone the complainant is entitled to replacement of the laptop.  But in this case there is no material to show that it is a manufacturing defect.  The ISO guidelines allows six pixel dots and if it is beyond six pixel dots then alone it will be a manufacturing defect.  Here there is only one dot is there.  It is not a manufacturing defect in the laptop.  The opposite parties are ready even to replace the defective parts.  The complainant would have taken the laptop to any expert to obtain a report stating that a single pixel dot is nothing but the manufacturing defect of the entire laptop.  But there is not such report.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and

and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The complainant is directed to submit the laptop to the opposite parties within 10 days from the date of this order.  The opposite parties shall repair the laptop by replacing the defective parts of the laptop and return the defectless laptop to the complainant within 20 days thereafter.
3. Each parties shall bear their own costs.

4. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

5.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20^th Day of April 2011)

MEMBER                                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT