DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1320 of 2009 Date of Inst: 16.09.2010 Date of Decision: 07.10.2010 Sarbjit Kaur w/o Sh.Jagjit Singh and Jagjit Singh s/o Sh.Ajit Singh r/o Flat No.205, GH-44, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Lenovo India Ltd., through Atlantic Technologies, SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh-160020. 2. Atlantic Technologies, SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Tribune Road, Chandigarh-160020. 3. Branch Manager, RT Outsourcing Services Ltd., SCO No.23, Sector 18, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Jagjit Singh, complainant No.2 in person. Sh.Varun Sharma, Advocate for OP-1 Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for OP-2. None for OP-3. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Sarbjit Kaur and Sh.Jagjit Singh have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Pay Rs.53000/- being the price of Lenovo Laptop. ii) Pay Rs.21,428/- as compensation for loss of damage. iii) Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. iv) Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they purchased a Lenovo Laptop (3000 Y-510) vide Bill No.4690 dated 28.01.2008 for a sum of Rs.53,000/- from OP-2 for use of their daughter. The laptop was having warranty of one year. According to the complainants, after three months, the LCD of the laptop became loose and some faults occurred in DVD writer and memory card reader. They approached M/s Atlantic Technologies (OP-2) who got the laptop checked from its engineer but failed to rectify the problems. On the advice of OP-2, the complainants approached M/s R.T. Outsourcing Services Limited i.e. OP-3 who is the authorized service centre of OP-1. According to the complainants, LCD of the Laptop was changed on 06.11.2008. But the laptop again started giving problems regarding Webcam display. The complainants were told by OP-3 that the ordered parts had not been received. They (complainants) were asked to keep in touch with it. On 02.01.2009, 02.02.2009 and 16.06.2009 OP-3 received the laptop but the returned the same without repairing the same on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the complainants talked to Mr.Amrit, Customer Care Executive who told them that laptop is out of warranty. The complainants protested and said that as the complaint was lodged within the warranty period, OPs cannot refuse to rectify the defect on the ground that the warranty period had expired. The complainants had to make repeated visits to OP-3 for getting repairs of the laptop. OP-3 received the laptop again on 18.07.2007 vide RTL/07/32 and returned the same on 28.07.2009 without resolving the problems. The laptop was again handed over to OP-3 on 02.08.2009 and the same was returned on 08.08.2009 saying that all the defects in the laptop were removed. The case of the complainant that the laptop in question is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defects due to which the problems occurred frequently within a short span of period of its purchase. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP-1, it has admitted that the laptop was manufactured by it. It has been pleaded that pre-delivery inspection is carried out by the technical experts before the laptop is dispatched to the dealer for its onwards sale to the customers. According to OP-1, the complainant has failed to show any inherent manufacturing defect in the laptop. All other allegations made in the complaint are vehemently denied. There is no deficiency in service on its part and hence, the complaint qua it be dismissed. 4. In the reply filed by OP-2, it has admitted that the complainants purchased the laptop in question for Rs.53000/- and the laptop was having warranty of one year. It has been denied that the complainants approached OP-2 after its purchase. It has been pleaded that the present dispute is between the complainant and the OPs No.1 and 3 and it has no role to play. According to OP No.2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal qua it. 5. In the reply filed by OP-3, it has been admitted that the laptop is having warranty of one year. It has been admitted that the complainants complained regarding problems in LCD of the Laptop and OP-3 assured them that the required repair work would be carried out only when the new parts were received. According to the OP-3, on 06.11.2008, the parts were received and the same were replaced and repaired laptop was handover to the complainants to their entire satisfaction. Thereafter, the complainants complained about LCD Webcam which was also diagnosed. According to OP-3, there is problem in LCD and the same was required to be replaced. It has further been admitted that it took the delivery of the laptop on 02.01.2009 and 02.02.2009 in anticipation that the ordered parts would be received by them. It has been asserted that on 16.06.2009, the laptop submitted by the complainant was different from the laptop which was covered under warranty. It has further been pleaded that the laptop was again repaired on 08.08.2009 and the same was duly repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. In these circumstances, according to OP No.3, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them. 6. We have heard the complainant No.2 in person and the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 7. From the perusal of the job sheets (Annexures III, IV, VI to IX)), it is apparent that the laptop started giving problems from date of its purchase and the said defects occurred within the warranty period. The laptop had to be taken to OP-3 for repairs a number of times. Despite it, OP-3 failed to set right the defects and the laptop is still giving troubles to the complainants. So it amounts to manufacturing defects. In case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Cdr. Udaybi reported in I(2008) CPJ-490 (NC), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that where the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop for rectifying the defects on number of occasions and even thereafter the said defects were not set right, it amounts to deficiency in service. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in the case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Charan Negi reported in IV(2007) CPJ 167. The Hon'ble State Commission has further held as under: “A consumer purchases new article to save himself from the inconvenience of second hand article as in the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to take the vehicle time and again for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable and in such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately”. 8. In view of the above judgement, the OPs cannot avoid its liability to repair/replace the defective Laptop in question. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the laptop in question is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect which cannot be repaired. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to refund Rs.53,000/- being the price of the laptop in question to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation of mental agony and harassment along with Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.63,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.09.2010 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 07.10.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1320 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 06.10.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 07.10.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
