.
ORDER
By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER (President In-Charge)
1. Complainant is a Software Engineer. Case of the complainant is that he is working on a startup project with his old computer system which was slow and unable to operate Android Studio’s Emulator. So, on 25-02-2019 he ordered Lenovo Idea pad 530s from Amazon.in and he had received the system on 03-03-2019. But on 26-03-2019 at 11 AM, 23 days after purchase, system got dysfunct due to motherboard failure and complainant registered a complaint in Lenovo Customer Care 1800 419 7555 and that was booked Service order No.8012808965. On 03-04-2019 complainant got the system by replacing the motherboard , but on 04-04-2019 that is within 24 hours , the system again got dysfunct and he again registered a complaint and Lenovo Service agent diagnosed as motherboard failure. Again on 13-04-2019 got the system with replaced motherboard, but the system was not charging . On 15-04-2019 he again called Lenovo Customer Care and booked complaint with Service Order No.8012 909596 and Service Agent Mr. Muhammed Nahas came on 16th April and system is taken for Service Centre inspection . On 17th April 2019 when complainant called him, he said that system is having motherboard failure and to wait for four days till new motherboard arrives. Till filing the case before Forum, the system is with opposite party No.2 shop Lenovo authorized Service Centre. The system had motherboard failure for 3 times within one month. Hence this complaint , Complainant wants complete refund of the amount for Rs. 65,990/-(Rupees Sixty five thousand nine hundred and ninety only) already paid and a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs only) .
2. On receipt of the complaint, notice was issued to both opposite parties and opposite party No.1 appeared and filed vakkalath, versions and Chief affidavit. Opposite party No.2 never appeared before the Forum. Hence opposite party No.2 set exparte.
3. Opposite party No.1 appeared before the Forum through their counsel and submitted that they are a private limited company. A service request was logged in the CRM of opposite party No.1 on 26-03-2019 for issue of motherboard failure from complainant and service centre found mother board failure in the machine and the same was resolved by replacement of motherboard. Again on 03-04-2019 , a second service request was logged in the CRM for mother board failure and they again resolve the complaint by replacing the motherboard.
4. On 13-04-2019 a third service request was created by the complainant and opposite party No.1 again resolved the problem by replacing the motherboard and the machine was returned to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 again contented that there existed no manufacturing defect in the laptop. Every single product of opposite party No.1 is imported and sold in India is subjected to very stringent quality checks in accordance with highest recognized quality standards and the same is brought for the sale in the market in India. Long standing image and repute of opposite party No.1 globally and in India itself is a reflection of high quality of products. More over the machine has been taken to the authorized service centre for service three times does not lead to an inference of manufacturing defects. Opposite party No.1 further stated that complainant is only interested in refund of the laptop. As per the warranty clause of opposite party No.1, if the product is neither repairable nor replaceable, only then the question of refund of cost of the product arises. In this matter, Laptop had only mother board issue and the same was resolved promptly by replacement of the mother board. Hence the question of granting refund of cost of the laptop does not even warrant consideration by any stretch of imagination .
5. They again stated that the allegation of manufacturing defect in a machine is not to be taken on a mere statement. But it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence to prove the allegation of manufacturing defects. Opinion of an Engineer who would have been an expert in the field of TV manufacturing/repairing would have been of a greater help to the complainant. But no such report has been obtained and filed. Hence the case of the complainant has rightfully dismissed.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4 . Ext.A1 is the copy of Email conversation dated on 22/06/2019 , Ext. A2 is the copies of Tax invoice of new lap top “DELL” dated 11/04/2019 , Ext. A3 is copy of Tax Invoice dated 25/02/2019 given by Amazon.in, Ext. A4 is the copies of Order details dated 25/02/2019 and Email conversation. Opposite party No.1 filed chief affidavit and documents he produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B5. Ext.B1 is the copy of Board Resolution, Ext.B2 is the copy of onsite Service Report, Ext. B3 is the Customer Feedback Form dated 26/3/2019, Ext. B4 is the copy of Onsite Service reports dated 13/04/2019 and Ext. B5 is the copy of Service reports dated 05/04/2019.
7. Points arise for consideration.
- Whether the laptop has got manufacturing defect?
- Whether complainant is entitled to get the cost of laptop?
- If so what is the relief and cost.
PointNo.1&2
8. Case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Lenovo Idea pad 530s from Amazon and within 23 days after receiving the same, it got dysfunct. System was non functional for 39 days out of the 66 days until the complainant file the complaint. The system had mother board issue nearly three times within that period.
9. Opposite party No.1 had appeared before the Forum , but they have no case that there is no mother board problem or any other problem related with computers. Both parties admitted the issue which exists in the laptop. Opposite party No.1 admitted these facts in their version and affidavit that their service centre, opposite party No.2 had repaired the mother board of the lap top of complainant. As per the documents produced by opposite party No.1, it is clear that opposite party No.2 , the service person of opposite party No. 1 company repaired the system thrice and replaced the mother board and they admitted that the existing problem is with the mother board. As per the complainant the system was non functional for 39 days out of the 66 days (3/3/2019 to 8/5/2019) until he file the complaint. That time period was crucial for the complainant to complete a project, but he was unable to complete it due to this problem of new laptop. As per complainant , in the first year of buying a brand new laptop , it is rare that system getting motherboard failure . But in this case the system had mother board failure three times. Hence he had purchased new laptop DELL for Rs. 64,800/-(Rupees Sixty four thousand and eight hundred only) on 11/04/2019 .
10. Opposite parties submitted that as per the warranty terms, in the first instance the laptop is only required to be repaired and if the repair is not possible , it may be replaced with one that is at least functionally equivalent. As per warranty terms, if the service provider determines that it is unable to repair or replace the product, the sole remedy under the limited warranty is to return the product to the place of purchase or Lenovo for a refund of the purchase price. The two procedures as per opposite party No.1 statement is already over. Hence refund the amount of the laptop is the only possible way. For reducing the importance of the problem opposite party in their version and affidavit stated that “only the mother board had problem” is not the right way . That attitude is also dangerous because mother board is one of the main devices in a computer and laptop and is the central circuit hub that allows connection between all components and peripherals attached to the computer. Everything that makes a computer work , from its CPU to its RAM and to its hard disc and plugs in to the motherboard. More over laptops motherboards are custom made and usually designed specifically for that lap top. More over as per complainant’s case now the Lenovo laptop is in the custody of opposite party No.2, he has not returned the system to complainant and opposite party No.1 is unable to produce document stating that the system is in custody of complainant.
11. Another contention opposite party No.1 is that allegation of manufacturing defect in a machine is not to be taken on a mere statement. But it is required to be proved beyond doubt by means of credible documentary evidence to prove the allegation of manufacturing defects. Opinion of an Engineer who would have been an expert in the field of TV manufacturing/repairing would have been of a greater help to the complainant. But in this case opposite party No.1 already admitted through their documents and affidavit that there was mother board issue in the laptop and they had repaired and replaced the mother board thrice, Ext.B2 and B4 clearly shows the same. So there is no need for an opinion of an expert or an engineer to prove this. If it is necessary for opposite party, they could approach the Commission to appoint an expert.
12. Therefore on the basis of the evidence and documents produced in this case, it can be rightly concluded that Lenovo laptop purchased by complainant is not at all fit for use. From the stand taken by opposite party No.1, it is made clear that they are unable to repair it. The defect is a manufacturing defect. More over it is the duty of opposite party No.1 to produce certificate from their Service provider (opposite party No.2) that the system is fit for use or unfit or laptop is unable to repair or replace. But they did not produce such certificate.
13. On the basis of the findings on the above points, we allow the complaint is as follows:
Opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the laptop Rs. 65,990/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand nine hundred and ninety only) to complainant . If the system is with complainant, he must return the laptop to opposite party No.1 after receiving the purchase price. Opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) to complainant and complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 14th day of September , 2020.
