Delhi

North East

CC/427/2015

Dr. Ved Prakash Banga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 427/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Dr Ved Prakash Banga 119A, Pocket E G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	Lenovo India Private Limited Having its office at: Ferns Icon – Level-2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, KR Puran, Hobli, Bangalore – 560037.   Venkateshwara Distributors Pvt Ltd Shop No. 5 JD 20A SFS Flats, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

30.10.2015 03.07.2018 04.07.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Lenovo Laptop model E 431 6277 1F1 PF0A 2R2 manufactured by OP1 from OP2, its authorized dealer on 02.11.2013 for an amount of Rs. 42,000/- vide invoice no. 496. However, the said laptop had certain defects of getting hung up and videos not playing for which complaints were lodged by the complainant with OP1 since October 2014. The OP1 took the remote control of his system several times to resolve the problem which took five hours daily for three days as against an hour as promised by OP1 but with no result. The complainant was asked by OP1 to take the said laptop to its customer care at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for repairs but since the problem remained therein, the OP1 informed the complainant that there was a defect in the hard disk of the laptop which needed to be changed for which the complainant agreed on the condition that it should be the last effort to repair the system. The complainant had submitted that it took more than six hours to upload all software and hard disk but the result was not positive which he communicated to OP1 which asked him to provide the screen shot the same vide e-mail dated 26.06.2015 and the complainant sent the same vide returned e-mail which displayed that “depending on your computer environment, high quality videos or 3D movies may not play smoothly”. The complainant communicated to the OP1 several times vide e-mails dated 03.07.2015 and 24.09.2015 requesting for replacement of the defective laptop given the failure of repair even in the last opportunity to which the OP vide reply e-mail dated 24.09.2015 informed the complainant that there was no policy of change of system and it could only be repaired. However, after receiving no response from the OP1 to replace the defective laptop, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint praying for directions to OP1 to replace the defective laptop and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for loss of valuable time of the complainant being a busy medical practitioner alongwith litigation expenses.

The complainant has attached the copy retail invoice no.496 dated 02.11.2013 for purchase of the laptop manufactured by OP1 from OP2 with hand written endorsement “product key is not visible on screen. To be resolved through customer by 04.11.2013 if not seller will provide.” The complainant has placed on record the series of e-mails exchanged between him and OP1 from October 2014 till September 2015 regarding problems in the laptop and repairs thereon alongwith copy of screen shot.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs. OP1 entered appearance on 07.01.2016. Notice to OP2 was returned unserved with postal remark ‘left’ in response to which the complainant placed on record letter dated 11.02.2016 on 26.02.2016 stating that the new dealer representing OP1 was using the new name Lenovo Kavya Info Solution at the same address with same telephone number and e-mail ID. The complainant subsequently filed an application for issuance of fresh notice to OP2 which when issued was received back unserved with postal remark ‘refused’ which is deemed service and therefore OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2016. OP1 filed written statement on 26.02.2016 in which it took the preliminary objection that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1 since it honored the warranty claims and repaired the laptop free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant after thorough examination and necessary rectification and part replacement i.e. operating system upgradation and replacement of hard disk drive free of cost. OP1 further took the defence that the service centre of OP1 had since rectified the problem of the complainant as above when the laptop was brought by the complainant to the service centre, as such the complainant was not entitled to either replacement or refund towards the cost of the laptop and the fact that the part replacement of the laptop had been carried out free of cost under warranty, asking for replacement of the laptop by the complainant was unwarranted. The OP1 relied upon the Lenovo Limited Warranty Clause which stated that “If the Service Provider that it is unable to either repair or replace your product your service. Provider will replace it one that is functionally equivalent. If the Service Provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product your sole remedy is to return your product to your place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price. ”  The OP1 further contended that the complainant had logged three calls on 02.11.2013 bearing reference numbers 8002037023, 8002037147, 8002037268 regarding issues with his laptop which the service team of OP1 was able to resolve through remote access technique by upgrading the operating system of the laptop and on the subsequent service requests logged on May 29, 2015 vide serial               no. 7006752284 by the complainant, the OP1 engineer visited on site and after thorough examination of the laptop of the complainant, replace the hard disk drive thereof. The OP1 took the defence that the grievance of the complainant has been looked into by authorized service centre at all times to his full satisfaction when the operating system was upgraded and hard disk drive was replaced of the said laptop and the said laptop was handed over to the complainant in proper functional condition and therefore the present complaint is an afterthought with an intention to harass the OP1 to gain monetary advantage. The OP1 further urged that the complainant was already informed that the said laptop could be changed and could only be repaired as per the terms of warranty in accordance to which only if the repair was not possible, the same may be replaced with a functionally equivalent one whereas in the present case the service centre of OP1 had already upgraded the OS and replaced the Hard Disk Drive of the said laptop free of cost under warranty. The OP1 had attached copy of Customer Relation Management (CRM) tool bearing no. 7006752284 and Lenovo Limited Warranty alongwith its written statement.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance in the complaint and submitting that even despite the upgradation of operating system and replacement of hard disk drive of the laptop by the OP free of cost, the problems in the laptop persisted as can be seen from the screen shot which showed that “video cannot play smoothly”. The complainant further stated that the OP1 not only failed to rectify the defects of the laptop but also refused to refund the cost of the laptop or replace the same which was defective and dysfunctional from the very beginning and the bill of product also showed that its product key was not visible. The complainant summarily denied the defence taken by the OP1 in its written statement and prayed for relief sought in the present complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reinforcing his grievance against the OPs and exhibited the copy of bills/retail invoice and e-mails / correspondence between himself and OP1 from October 2014 till September 2015 regarding defects in the laptop and lastly notice under Consumer Protection Act when OPs refused to replace the defective laptop or refund the price thereof to the complainant.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP1 reiterating its defence in its written statement.
6. Written arguments were filed by the complainant in which the complainant submitted that the said laptop had defects on delivery on 02.11.2013 for which he had contacted OP2 which had assured him of rectification of the same. However when no action was taken by OP2, the complainant had to contact OP1 service centre in October 2014 when it became impossible to use the laptop due to defects therein after which repeatedly repairs were carried on by OP1 with respect to change of operating system and replacement of hard disk drive but the problem in the laptop remained while it was still within warranty. The complainant requested the OP1 to change the laptop and enquired about the location of OP2 which was its authorized dealer but OP1 did not give any positive response thereto except cursory denial of unable to give the OP2 address since they were not keeping dealer’s record. The complainant further argued that various complaints with respect to the said laptop clearly showed that there was inherent problem in the laptop for which the OP1 used to take the remote control access of laptop or sent their engineer to attend the complaint but due to manufacturing defect, the engineer of service provider of OP1 failed to rectify the defect therein despite upgradation of operating system and replacement of hard disk drive which clearly is deficiency of service on the part of OPs amounting to harassment to the complainant despite admission by the OP1 that if service provider is unable to repair the laptop it will be changed or the cost of it would be refunded under the warranty period and therefore prayed for compensation jointly and severally from OP1 and OP2 for unfair trade practice, mental agony and harassment for delivering defective laptop.
7. Written arguments were filed by OP1 reiterating its defence in the written statement of addressing the grievance of the complainant to his full satisfaction by necessary rectification and part replacement i.e. operating system and hard disk drive free of cost under warranty to make the good laptop and therefore no deficiency of service could be attributed to OP1. The OP1 further argued that it was only when the repair was not possible that the laptop was to be replaced with a functionally equivalent one but in the present case the OP1 had rectify the problem of the laptop of the complainant free of cost and therefore complainant was not entitled to either replacement or refund towards the cost of the laptop under the Lenovo Limited Warranty. Lastly the OP1 offered that the complainant may bring the subject laptop for service at its authorized service centre for the repairs.
8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.

It is not in dispute that the laptop in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2 manufactured by OP1 and that due to problem therein of functionality, its operating system was upgraded and hard disk drive was changed within one year of its purchase. However, even after such major alterations, the screen shot of the said laptop in June 2015 shows that there were problem of videos not playing and subsequent e-mails written by complainant to OP1 are also reflective of the grievance of the complainant that the OP1 closed his service request despite his communication to them that his system was not OK despite the change in hard disk drive and that OP1 had repeatedly engaged the complainant in taking remote control access for repair of the laptop, replacing its parts, uploading the programs but did not replace the laptop despite such state of recurring problems there in which to our view speak volume of inherent manufacturing defect in the said laptop which despite repairs could not be made functional / operational during the warranty period. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Rellech Bio Chemical System Ltd Vs Amulya Kumar Behara (Dr.) (2007) IV CPJ 388 (NC) had upheld the order of the District Forum and State Commission in which the appellant was held deficient in service in failure to repair the defects in the defective machine which went out of order many times within the warranty period to the satisfaction of the complainant.

9. We have applied our judicial mind to the evidentiary documents placed on record by both the parties and are of the considered opinion that the subject laptop suffered from inherent manufacturing defect from the very date of purchase when its product key was not visible on screen as endorsed by OP2 on the retail invoice coupled with the fact that the entire operating system and the hard disk drive of the laptop had to be changed despite which too, the laptop could not function properly. Therefore, the OP1 should have rightfully and logically replaced the same with a ‘functionally equivalent one’ or refunded the purchase price of the said laptop to the complainant as per Lenovo Limited Warranty Clause but the OP1 failed to resolve the issued or redress the grievance neither by replacement nor by refund.
10. We therefore hold the OP1 and OP2 as dealer and manufacturer jointly and severally guilty of deficiency of service and direct them jointly and severally to refund the cost of the Rs. 42,000/- towards the purchase price of the laptop to the complainant alongwith                 Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment for delivering defective laptop to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which penal                 interest @ 9% on the awarded amount of Rs. 52,000/- shall be payable by both the OPs jointly and severally to the complainant from the date of default i.e. after expiry of mandatory 30 days period for honour of this order from date of receipt of copy of the same till realization.                                   
11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12.   File be consigned to record room.
13.   Announced on 04.07.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member