BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.319 of 2018
Date of Instt. 09.08.2018
Date of Decision:07.07.2022
Dr. Sarabjeet Singh aged 37 years son of Surinder Singh resident of 302, Defence Colony, Jalandhar, Punjab.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Head Office: Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddanekundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Post, Kr. Puram Hobli, Banglore 560037, Karnataka through its authorized representative.
2. Lenovo Service Centre, 2nd Floor, Regenersis Swatik Computers, Monica Tower, Shop No.1, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab through its Authorized Representative.
3. Sargam Electricals, A-77, Guru Nanak Pura, Main Road, Vikas Marg, New Delhi.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Bharat Puri, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. M. S. Walia, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
OP No.3 Given Up.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo Laptop make Lenovo Yoga 80 N400 3ViN S No.RgoFuu2K with Lenovo Bag Pack from M/s Sargam Electronics i.e. the OP No.3 vide retail invoice no.29264 dated 09.08.2015 worth Rs.55,500/- and at the time of purchase, the complainant was assured that the above said Laptop is under complete warranty + full coverage of three years from the date of purchase which includes repair/replacement of the Laptop for any damage caused by way of an accident. The complainant was regularly using the said Laptop with due care and caution. Unfortunately in the month of October 2017 the battery of the laptop of the complainant was not working and the complainant requested the OPs No.1 and 2 for purchasing new battery but the OPs replied the complainant that the said part is not available in the company. Since October 2017 the complainant requested number of times to the OPs and sent various emails for the requirement of the Laptop battery, but the OPs dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. Since October 2017 the Laptop of the complainant was fully dead and without battery there is no use of Laptop. The work of the complainant is fully dependent upon the laptop and without battery work of the complainant suffered a lot as such, the complainant is entitled for the replacement or repair of the said part of the laptop as per terms and conditions of the warranty and the act of the OPs for non replacement, amounts to deficiency in service on their part and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the laptop of the complainant or return the money. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and further grant Rs.1000/- expenses on account of fee of Rs.100/- paid for making complaint, postal expenses etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 was given up by the counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement. OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that all the averments made and contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint are denied, as being false and baseless, unless specifically admitted hereto. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. It is further averred that without prejudice to the above and without admitting that there was any problem in the laptop, it is pertinent to mention that the answering OP always aims at customers satisfaction as its first priority and values the relationship with its customers. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the Laptop by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant alongwith well as OP No.1 very minutely.
6. The complainant has alleged that he has purchased a Lenovo Laptop make Lenovo Yoga 80 N400 3ViN S No.RgoFuu2K from the OP on 09.08.2015, vide the Invoice Ex.C-1. As per the contention of the complainant in the month of October, 2017, the battery of the Laptop of complainant stopped working and the OP was requested to replace the battery, but the OPs replied that the product is not available with them. Ex.C-2 is the job sheet. Perusal of this job sheet shows that problem reported was system not on without plug in, battery problem need to replace battery. As per this document, it is proved that the product when was sent for repair, fell within warranty period. Emails have been sent to the OPs number of times for replacing the battery, but reply to the email shows that the battery was not available with them. Emails have been proved as Ex.C-3 consisting of five pages. Notice has been proved as Ex.C-4 and the Postal Receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7. The OP has alleged that the accidental damage protection hold valid only for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the product and the extended warranty of two years is a carry-in service wherein the customer has to carry the laptop to the service center for repairs as per terms and conditions of warranty, but this defence of the OPs is contradictory to the Ex.C-2. Ex.C-2 clearly shows that when the Laptop was sent for repair, the same was found to be in warranty, meaning thereby that even after the two years of the purchase of the Laptop, the same was found to be under warranty on 22.11.2017. So, this contention is not tenable. It has been alleged by the OP that out of warranty services depend on the availability of the part, but this fact is again not applicable to the facts of the present case as the service was not out of warranty, therefore they were bound to replace the battery as per the admission of the OPs. The OPs have relied upon the terms and conditions Annexure-2, but in Annexure-2 nothing has been mentioned to support the contention that there is one year warranty or two year extended warranty for the Laptop. From these facts, it is proved that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the product was within warranty and the OPs were bound to replace the battery, but they have failed to replace the battery despite number of emails and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to replace the battery of the laptop of the complainant free of cost, in working condition, in case the battery is not available, the OPs are directed to exchange the laptop of the complainant with new laptop of complainant’s choice, if he desires so, and the difference of price of exchanged laptop shall be borne by the complainant. Further, the OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
07.07.2022 Member Member President
