| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 321 of 09-11-2017 Decided on : 07-06-2018 Naresh Garg S/o Sh. Dewan Chand Garg aged about 44 years R/o #13317 (Z-4/05781), Namdev Marg, 40' Road, Corner Bhatti Road, Bathinda 151 001. …..Complainant Versus Lenovo (India) Private Ltd., Regd. Office Ferns Icon. Level 2 Deddenakundi Village, Marathathalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore through its Director M.D./CEO Mahesh Electronics Shop No. MCB 2 09334 First Floor,Opp. Lord Rama School, Near Fuzi Chowk Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through Mahesh Kumar Owner/Prop. Navkar Agencies, 4673 Shakti Market, Near J & K Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Owner/Manager/Partner
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Sh. G.S.Jaura, Advocate, for OP No. 1. Sh. Tarun Kumar, Advocate for OP No. 2. Sh. Vishal Goyal, Advocate for OP No. 3. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Naresh Garg, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Lap Top Lenovo Z51-70 Serial No. MP087T63 from opposite party No. 3 manufactured by opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 is service center of opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that at the time of selling Lap Top, opposite party No. 3 assured that they have exclusive Showroom of opposite party No.1. They also given Diwali offer with extended warranty upto 24-11-2018. The product was purchased vide Invoice dated 25-11-2015. It is alleged that in the month of August, 2017, Battery of the Laptop started giving trouble and not working properly. The complainant contacted opposite party No. 3 but to no response. The complainant time and again called Toll Free Number of the Company on web site but number was not working. Finally complainant lodged complaint on mail in September, 2017 but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not listen and demanded ticket Number of the complainant where as opposite party No.1 never issued Ticket Number. The opposite party No. 2 was also approached but they refused to provide any service by stating that machine is out of warranty whereas extended warranty is still active upto 24-11-2018. The complainant having no alternative and under compelling circumstances, expressed readiness to pay battery charges and other charges, if any. It is alleged that the opposite parties illegally denied and did not repair the Laptop despite consent for payment of charges. Now the opposite parties have totally denied repair/replacement of the Battery of the Laptop with the remarks that the same is not available whereas it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide the parts of the sold products. Moreover, the product is still under warranty. Even if assuming that the Laptop is out of warranty even then, it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide parts of the selling products. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties It is pleaded that due to this, complainant has suffered mental and physical torture. For these sufferings, complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant also prayed for direction to the opposite parties to repair and solve the battery issue of the Laptop or refund its price of Rs.58,700/- along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest @ 18% per annum. The complainant also claimed 22,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that complaint is totally baseless, misconceived, not maintainable, untenable and abuse of the process of law. It is liable to be dismissed at the outset. That there is no deficiency in service on the part opposite party. That the allegations raised are an afterthought with the intention of gaining undue monetary advantage from the opposite party. It is further mentioned that since the battery is not covered under extended warranty, the opposite party cannot replace the battery. On merits, the version of the opposite party regarding averments relating to it is that there is no record of any calls logged in with the opposite party's Authorized Service Centre. It is further mentioned that during the visit to the service centre, the complainant was informed that the laptop was running out of warranty. Therefore, the battery replacement was not possible by the service centre. After validating with the authorised service centre that as per Customer, Relationship Management, there was a service call logged in through Service Customer Care on 10-11-2017 for battery replacement but it was denied since the battery has only one year warranty. It is reiterated that extended warranty does not include battery. It is also submitted that opposite party is responsible only for the Laptop until the Warranty period/Under Warranty parts of the same and not beyond. It is further mentioned that if any out of warranty support is required, it shall be provided by a third party vendor. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. The opposite party No. 2 in its reply raised legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence. It is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act'. The appropriate remedy if any lies only in the Civil Court. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum as well as from opposite party No. 2. He is not entitled to any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that the battery and charger of the laptop is not covered under extended warranty. In case any defect comes in the battery or charger of the laptop during extended warranty, the complainant has to purchase new battery or charger from his own pocket. That the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party as the alleged battery is not covered under extended warranty. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. That the complaint is not maintainable in the present form against the opposite party as it is the only service Centre of opposite party No.1. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 has reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that it has not denied repair of the Laptop rather the complainant has never approached with the Laptop at service centre. The opposite party No. 2 has denied all the material averments of the complainant. In the end, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In reply, the opposite party No. 3 also raised legal objections that complainant has leveled false, wrong and baseless allegation and has claimed relief against the opposite. party by fabricating a concocted false story. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. That there is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party as the opposite party has sold the product as was demanded by him. That the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. That the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint against it. That the contents of the complaint are mis-conceived, misleading, concocted and afterthought. That the complainant has no locus-standi or no cause of action to file the complaint. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. That there is no deficiency in service on its part and lastly that the complainant is stopped from filing the complaint by his act, conduct, omissions and acquiescence. On merits, it is pleaded that at the time of selling the product, it was told that product comes with one year warranty and that too from the company end. No Diwali offer was given by opposite party No. 3. It is pleaded that complainant never approached it with any complaint. Moreover warranty, if any, is to be given i.e. not by opposite party No. 3. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 24-1-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of warranty and repair card (Ex. C-3), photocopy of extended warranty (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of e-mails (Ex. C-5). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 31-3-2018 of Saurav Ganguly (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of resolution (Ex. OP-1/2) and photocopy of limited warranty (Ex. OP-1/3). The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 6-3-2018 of Mahesh Kumar. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 failed to produce remaining evidence. As such, evidence of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 was closed by order dated 26-4-2016. The complainant and opposite party No. 1 have also submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of the complainant and opposite party No. 1. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is not disputed that complainant purchased Laptop from opposite party No. 3 which is manufactured by opposite party No. 1. It is not disputed that complainant availed extended warranty which was upto 24-11-2018. It is also not disputed that complainant lodged complaint regarding battery problem. The version of the opposite parties is that the battery is not covered under extended warranty. The complainant has also pleaded that he has expressed readiness to pay charges for battery and other parts, if any. In these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot deny service to the complainant. The opposite parties have charged for extended warranty. Therefore, the opposite parties were supposed to provide battery and other parts which are required for repair of the Laptop although not covered under extended warranty. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited :- (i) III (2016) CPJ 426 (NC) case titled Honda Siel Car India Limited Vs. Rohit Jain & Another (ii) III (2015) CPJ 56 (Comp. AT) case titled Shamsher Kataria Vs. Honda Siel Cars India and others (iii) II (2014) CPJ 24 (NC ) case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Kumar Gaurav & Ors. (iv) III(2013) CPJ 25 (Uttar.) case titled Navdeep Solar Vs. Suhag Sari & Suits On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of Laptop in question and the complainant availed extended warranty. The complainant himself placed on record copy of extended warranty (Ex. C-4). At the beginning of this document, it is clearly mentioned that “The Lenovo 2 year Extended Warranty is governed by respective terms and conditions available at web site of the opposite party. The opposite party has also produced copy of Limited Warranty as Ex. OP-1/3 and the Warranty document available at web site (copy produced today) also proves that Warranty period for all Lenovo batteries, stylus and digitizer pends are limited to 12 months unless otherwise specified. There is nothing to show that warranty for battery was also got extended separately. Therefore, the battery is not covered under extended warranty as the period of 12 months already elapsed. In these circumstances, the opposite party is not under obligation to replace the battery. The opposite party has not denied service for any other fault covered under extended warranty and is still ready to provide service as per extended warranty. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint is without merit. It be dismissed. We have carefully gone through the record, case law cited by learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the rival contentions. The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased Laptop from opposite party No. 3, which is manufactured by opposite party No. 1. It is also admitted that complainant availed extended warranty which was valid upto 25-11-2018. This fact is also proved from Warranty Card (Ex. C-4). The complainant has pleaded that he raised battery issue with the opposite parties and they have refused to solve the same. E-mail (Ex. C-5) proves that complainant made correspondence with the opposite parties for solving the battery issue. E-mail dated 28-9-2017 also proves that complainant expressed readiness to pay charges for new battery if is is out of warranty. In reply, the opposite party has also advised the complainant to visit Service Centre and purchase new battery on chargeable basis. This fact shows that opposite party No. 1 was aware of the fact that complainant has offered to pay for battery. The complainant has repeatedly asserted that he approached opposite party No. 2 even with mail of opposite party No. 1, but opposite party No. 2 also refused to provide service. Admittedly, opposite party No. 2 is authorized service centre of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 has simply pleaded that complainant never approached it. It is admitted that warranty is valid till 25-11-2018. It is well settled that warranty is service which is provided to keep the machine in perfect condition during period of warranty. Therefore, the opposite parties are under obligations to keep the product in working condition till validity of extended warranty. Of course as per opposite parties, the battery is not covered under extended warranty but the complainant has expressed readiness to pay for the same. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 3,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to repair the Laptop as per extended warranty condition. The complainant will be under obligation to pay for the battery if replacement of the battery is also required, Since the extended warranty is on behalf of opposite party No. 1, therefore, complaint against opposite party No. 3 stands dismissed. The complainant will approach opposite parties No. 1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter opposite parties will redress the grievances of the complainant within further 30 days. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 07-06-2018 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh ) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
