Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/4/2018

K.Pavan Kumar, S/o K.Nagi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

C.Poorna Chand

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                                                                        Filing Date:- 29-01-2018                                                                                                                                                                                    Order Date:- 29-11-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. T.Anand  President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

C.C.No.04/2018

Between

K.Pavan Kumar, S/o. K. Nagi Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 27 years,

Resident of D.No.8-6-64, Ramasubba Reddy Street,

Allagadda – 518543,

Kurnool Strict.                                                                            …. Complainant

 

And

1. Lenovo India Pvt., Ltd.,

Rep. by Authorized Signatory,

Holding Office at Ferns Icon. Level 2,

Doddenakund Village,

Marath halli outer ring road,

Marath Halli Post, K.R.Puram, Hobli,

Banglore – 560037.

 

2. IT Store,

rep. by Authorized Signatory,

Holding Office at Shop No. 5, Ground Floor,

Chenoy Trade Centre, Parklane,

Secunderabad – 500003.

 

3. S.V.Cellular,

Rep. By Authorized Signatory,

Holding Office at No.410 & 411,

3^rd Floor, Central Park,

Tilak Road, Opp. Municipal Office,

Tirupati – 517501.                                                           …. Opposite parties

                         

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.10.2018 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.C.Poorna Chand, counsel for the complainant and Sri. S.A.K. Jakir Hussain, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 & 3 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally, to refund the price of the laptop of Rs.28,500/- to the complainant with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay costs of the complaint. 

        2. The brief facts of the case are: the complainant purchased a laptop of the model bearing no. LENO G5080 GBIH i3-1TB-DS for a sum of Rs.28,500/- vide bill 03506 from the show room of the opposite party No.2 on 29.10.2016 and the same is manufactured by opposite party No.1. The complainant further submits that from the date of the purchase the above said laptop is not working properly though servicing was done several times. The problem in the laptop has been recurring frequently. Hence he approached the opposite party No.2 to recognize the fact that the laptop sold by them is having manufacturing defect and sought for replacement of the new laptop or to refund the price amount. But the opposite party No.2 refused to pay the same and suggested the complainant to approach the opposite party No.3 who is the authorized service centre to repair the laptop. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on 14.10.2017 and gave the laptop for repair and in the service record it is mentioned that the complaint is “ Wi-Fi, Bluetooth not working properly”. Accordingly the opposite party No.3 gave receipt No. 7025980258. After 10 days the complainant received mail from the opposite party No.3 that “the laptop is ready to pickup”. Hence he approached the opposite party No.3 to pickup his laptop but the opposite party No.3 stated that the problem was not yet rectified and they will return the laptop within two days. But the complainant questioned opposite party No.3 as to why they have sent the mail, when the problem is not rectified. But the opposite party No.3 stated that there is a time limit to solve the problems and in case more time is required, it is the formality of the company to send the messages for extension of time and close the existing complaints and raise fresh complaints. After two days the complainant approached opposite party No.3 to pickup his laptop but it was not rectified and finally the said laptop was handed over to him on 04.11.2017 after  carrying out  the repairs and the Bluetooth and  Wifi were working fine by the date of delivery. But the very next day of taking the laptop from service, he  faced the issues such as continuous stuck off and the laptop had to be forcibly shut down.

          Hence the complainant made several representations to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 through E-mails but they have failed to resolve the issue. Even after several repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite party No.3 failed to rectify the defect and further stated that there is some internal circuit problem and therefore cannot rectify the problem at free of cost, the warranty period is completed. Hence they returned the laptop without rectifying the defect.  Hence the complainant stated that the opposite party No.1 failed to do the service properly when he gave the laptop at first instance on 14.10.2017 itself. The purpose of purchasing the laptop was not  served as the laptop which was purchased by the complainant is defective one. Finally the complainant issued legal notice on 02.12.2017 and after receipt of the said notice the opposite party No.1 gave reply notice on 12.12.2017 by denying the averments in the notice of the complainant and issued vague reply. Hence he filed the present complaint.

         3.  After receipt of the notices issued by this Forum , opposite party No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed the written version and opposite party No. 2 and 3 failed to attend before this Forum. Hence opposite party 2 and 3 called absent and set exparte.

        4. The opposite party No.1 came into appearance and filed the written version by admitting the sale of the laptop to the complainant and denied the further allegations made by the complainant. It is stated that the opposite party No.3 who is the service provider has duly attended the complaint by carrying out the repairs and replacing mother board and installation of operating system on free of cost as per warranty. Hence there is no question of either the replacement of new laptop or to refund the price of the laptop. It is further submitted that the laptop was in good working condition at the time of the purchase and the complainant has complained that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are not working properly for the first time on 14.10.2017 only i.e. after one year from the date of the purchase and again the complainant made a second call on 27.10.2017 for same issue and the opposite party attended the same by replacing the mother board and delivered the laptop to the complainant under  the warranty period.

        The opposite party No.1 further stated that the complainant had thereafter reported hanging issues after expiry of the warranty period. Hence they sent a mail to the complainant that the laptop is out of warranty and they will do the repairs on chargeable basis. But it was refused by the complainant. Hence whatever contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint are false and baseless as there is no deficiency in service on part of them. Hence the allegations which are made by the complainant are totally baseless. He approached the authorized service centre after expiry of warranty period. Hence there is no question of replacement of the laptop with a new one or to refund the price and therefore prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint.

         5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A6 were marked  on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of opposite party No.1 one Mr. Sourav Ganguly, S/o. Late Shri. Chandan Kumar Ganguly, who is the Authorized Representative at M/s. Lenovo India Pvt., Ltd filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 was marked on behalf of opposite party No.1. Both the complainant and opposite party No.1 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         6. The point for consideration is:-   Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent relief can be granted?

        7.Point :-  The case  of the complainant is, he purchased the laptop on 29.10.2016 which was manufactured by the opposite party no.1 and also there is no dispute about the complainant complaining about the defect in the laptop to opposite party No.2 and  handing over the laptop to opposite party No.3 on 14.10.2017 to repair the laptop and same was delivered to the complainant on 04.11.2017 after repairing the laptop on repeated requests made by the complainant. Immediately on the next day the laptop   again started giving trouble such as continuous stuck off and forcibly shut-off  the laptop. The opposite party stated that the warranty period of one year was over and the repair can be done only on chargeable basis which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of opposite parties as from the date of the purchase the said laptop is giving trouble. Once again the complainant is deprived of using the laptop.  The counsel for the opposite party No.1Stated that  as per the terms of the warranty, they have repaired the laptop and installed the operation system and replaced the motherboard on free of cost and delivered the laptop to the complainant on 04.11.2017 and when the complainant approached, the same facility could not be extended second time, because by that time the laptop is out of warranty and same was informed to the complainant by way of mail. 

        In this case the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for repair laptop on 14.10.2017 and same was handed over to him on 04.11.2017 by replacing mother board and solved the issues which were mentioned in the service record i.e Ex.A2. Immediately from the next day the new problem arose. But the opposite parties wanted to take the advantage by contending that the warranty period is over and repairs have to be done on chargeable basis. No doubt, the warranty period of one year was completed by 29.10.2017. No doubt the warranty period expired but he has to necessarily go for a new laptop since the present laptop has become useless. It clearly shows that the laptop is hardly functioned during warranty period and does not work beyond the warranty period and the same amounts to unfair trade practice as they supplied substandard laptop which has just lasted for one year.

       In this case there is a delay at first instance in providing prompt service which was handed over for repair on 14.10.2017 that too with in warranty and delivered the same on 04.11.2017 after the warranty period is completed. But they have not delivered the laptop on 23.10.2017 to the complainant within warranty period under Ex.A3. It was clearly mentioned that “Machine ready for pickup”. But failed to deliver the same and finally delivered on 04.11.2017. Hence there is no scope for the complainant to keep the laptop in observation within the warranty period and when the fresh problem arose the opposite parties refused to rectify the same by insisting charges as the warranty period of one year was already completed. As the opposite parties took nearly 20 days to repair the laptop and delivered without repairing the laptop after warranty was completed it amounts to deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complaint. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complaint and complaint is allowed accordingly.

         In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to carry out the repairs in the laptop of the complainant on free of cost and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and mental agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6)weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization. 

        Typed by the Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 29^th day of November, 2018. 

            Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-          

  Lady Member                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: K. Pavan Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Mr. Sourav Ganguly (Evidence/Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Buyer’s Copy of Invoice (Invoice No: 03056) bill for Rs.28,500/- to purchase the Laptop. Dt: 29.10.2016.
	Photo copy of Complaint Acknowledgement Receipts (2 in number). Dt: 30.10.2017.
	Photo copies of E-Mail Conversations.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with postal receipts. Dt:02.12.2017.
	Postal acknowledgements 2 in original.
	Served copy of reply notice issued by opposite party No.1 (Original copy). Dt: 12.12.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Certified true copy of Lenovo Limited Warranty along with notary.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                      President (FAC)

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to: 1) The Complainant,

                 2) The opposite parties.