Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1705

Mr. Jaswant Singh Airara, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

15 Jun 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 06.10.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 15.06.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027    

 

 

CC.No.1705/2015

DATED THIS THE15^thJUNE OF2018

PRESENT

 

                                               

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Jaswant Singh Airara, Aged about 42 years, S/o Mr.Late Ram Singh Airara, R/at No.4-F03, Palm Springs, 7th Cross, 4th B Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034.   By.Adv.Aravind Reddy	1	Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Leve-2, Doddanekkundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore-560 037.     By Adv.K.V.Omprakash
		2	The Digital, Reliance Retial Ltd., No.18, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala 4th Block, Bangalore-84.   By Adv.M.Srinivasa

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties directing to refund the cost of the Ideapad Yoga Rs.33,000/- paid under the bill dt.14.9.2013 with interest at 18% p.a. from 14.9.2013, till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings, to pay Rs.10,000/- against legal charges, to pay cost and grant such other reliefs deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are thatthe Complainant has purchased Leno Ideapad Yoga from M/s Reliance Retail Limited., manufactured by the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.33,000/-.  The Complainant submits that the article purchased was covered under warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchaser. After some time of purchase, the Complainant find the ideapad was not charging and he took the same to the service centre well within the period of warranty and the Opposite Party promised that the service engineer will visit and the same would be repaired/rectified immediately. By believing the promises made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant kept quiet.  When the Complainant approached the service center, they used to make the Complainant to run from pillar to post without rectifying the mistake on the ground that spares are not available in particular service centre. Finally unable to get the article repaired, the Complainant tried to contact the manufacturer, but in vain and the mail conversation speaks volumes about the service of the Opposite Party. Since the ideapad was required for some project work and he could not able to make use of the same on account of repair and there being any other alternative, the Complainant was forced to purchase apple make book AIR to finish his project work.  Due to the adamancy of the Opposite Party, the Complainant was made to run from pillar to post to get the article repaired, but in vain and on account of the same, the Complainant faced agony at the hands of the Opposite Party as the service providers as well as the Opposite Party though promised have failed to rectify the same. The Complainant is suffering from deficiency of service from the Opposite Party on various occasions and the same is clear cut case of unfair trade practice. The acts of Opposite Party squarely fall within the ambit of CP Act and there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party. The Complainant caused innumerable notice to the Opposite Party via mail conversation and demanded to refund the cost of the article, but instead of complying the demand, the Opposite Party replied to the mail but neither rectified the mistake, nor refunded the amount, hence having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the Complainant is approaching this Forum for necessary redressal. Hence this complaint.

3.Notice was ordered issue to the Opposite Parties who did appear and filed the version denying the allegations made by the Complainant against them.

4.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 are that this written statement is being filed on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party through Mr.SamikSengupta working as Head Customer Care and Digital Services at Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., who is the authorized representative of the 1^st Opposite Party and is duly authorized to file the instant reply. The Opposite Party submits 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 of service or unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties duly honoured the warranty claims and repaired the laptop, free of cost. Without prejudice to the above and without admitting that there was any problem in the laptop, it is pertinent to mention that this Opposite Party always aims at customer satisfaction as its first priority and values the relationships with its customers. The Opposite Party submits that after validating with the authorized service centre that there was no service request or complaint logged. The Complainant have communicated through E-mail regarding the Laptop issues after one year from the date of purchase for which the Complainant was informed to visit the authorized service center. An engineer was sent on-site visit to the Complainant’s place to provide the service on 7.11.2014 vide Ref.No.8004100704, 7006430273. After diagnosing the machine, the engineer informed the Complainant that since machine is out of warranty, the repair can be done on chargeable basis. The Complainant never approached the service center even after informing him through E-mails. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service. This Opposite Party has not made any misrepresentation which amounts to unfair trade practice. There is no record of any notice received through any sought of E-mail. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the Complainant never approached the authorized service center.Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 are that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in law or facts. The Opposite Party submits that it is interalia engaged in retail sale of electronic goods and home appliances. The 1^st Opposite Party is a well-known manufacturer and marketer of “Lenovo” products, including but not limited to Lenovo Ideapad Yoga and the Opposite Party is one of the dealers of the 1^st Opposite Party, duly authorized to sell the products, manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. As per the agreement between the Opposite Party 1 and 2 and in accordance with the prevailing trade practice, the 1^st Opposite Party is responsible to provide all after sale services in relation to the products manufactured and marketed by it. In order to provide the required after sale services to its customers, the 1^st Opposite Party has set up its service centres in various cities of India including Bangalore. The 1^st Opposite Party provides guidelines to its customers regarding product details, after sale services, list of service centres and contact details of customer care centres etc., in the handbook/user manual enclosed with its products. Moreover, the 1^st Opposite Party vide its warranty, undertakes to service its products and rectify the manufacturing defects if any, in the products sold to the retail customers subject to the warranty conditions. This Opposite Party submits that the warranty of the item in question was for a period of one year from the date of purchase, as admitted by the Complainant and this Opposite Party came to know from the 1^st Opposite Party that the same expired even before the Complainant approached them with alleged complaint. As such the above complaint against this Opposite Party is not maintainable. It is evident that there is no delay, negligence or deficiency in service attributed to this Opposite Party with regard to the alleged defects in the item, said to have been purchased by the Complainant from this Opposite Party. The problems allegedly experienced by the Complainant with Lenovo Ideapad, as per the user manual was to be addressed to the 1^st Opposite Party, and was allegedly done after expiry of the one year warranty period and there was no communication whatsoever with the Opposite Party and as such, this Opposite Party has nothing to do with the allegations made by the Complainant, that too the alleged complaint was made after the expiry of the warranty. It is clear from the complaint allegations that all the complaints or disputes were between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties was never involved and rightly so, as this Opposite Party was not responsible for any after sale service, that too after expiry of the warranty. The Opposite Party was unaware of what transpired between the Complainant and the Opposite Party after sale of the item and the Complainant never approached this Opposite Party for any assistance or complaining about alleged defect in the Ideapad, at any point of time till filing of the case. It is only after filing of this complaint, this Opposite Party came to know about the allegations/complaints of the Complainant. However, this Opposite Party was orally informed by the 1^st Opposite Party that despite the best efforts of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant was allegedly demanding certain amount and for refund of the sale price, which is not in terms of the warranty and in any event, the complaint is not maintainable against this Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has not placed any materials before this Forum to show that the Ideapad allegedly purchased by him from this Opposite Party is indeed defective and has not initiated any steps u/s 13 (1) (c) of the CP Act. In the absence of any material to prove the manufacturing defect in the said Ideapad produced by the Complainant, as on the date of filing of the complaint. Further, the Complainant has not suffered any loss. The Complainant has also not produced any evidence, much less any documents in support of any loss or damage or claims as claimed in the complaint. This Opposite Party did not cause any deficiency of service, especially when this Opposite Party was never informed by the Complainant of any complaint against the Ideapad allegedly purchased by him till the filing of the complaint. In view of the submissions, there was no deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite Party and in the absence of any proof of defect or alleged loss or mental agony, the Complainant is not entitled for an amount, much less the amount claimed in the complaint. On these grounds and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       The Complainant to substantiate hiscase,filed his affidavit evidence.Though the documents produced, but did not mark. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have filed their respective affidavit evidence. None of the document got marked. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. Heard both sides.

 

          7. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1) Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency in service on

the part of the OPs, if so, whether he is entitled for the relief

            sought for?

 

2) What Order?

                  

8.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:    We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.At the outset, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that the Complainant never stated when exactly he had purchased the said laptop. Further submits that as per the documents produced by the Complainant along with the complaint goes to show that he has purchased the said laptop on 14.9.2013, but he conveniently did not produce the warranty card which is for the period of one year from the date of purchase. Referring to this further submits that at the time of alleged defect in the said laptop, warranty period was over. When such being the fact, the Complainant has availed the service only on the payment basis, but not free of cost. The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer. The 1^st Opposite Party has specifically submits that the Complainant has informed with regard to the alleged defects. In this context, one of the engineers has been deputed where the Complainant is residing and who advised him to take the said laptop to the service centre. For which, the Complainant did not respond. It is the case of the 1^st Opposite Party that the said laptop has no any manufacturing defect. If that being the case, the Complainant would have been obtained the experts report and produced before this Forum, but he did not do so. We find there is a considerable force in the contention taken by the 1^st Opposite Party in the light of the decision reported in II (2017) CPJ 462 (NC) in the case of Bhagwan Singh Sekhawat V/s R.K.Photostate& Communication &Ors wherein it is held as under:

Consumer Protect Act, 1986-Sections 2 (1)(f), 14 (1)(d), 21(b)-Mobile set-Manufacturing defect-Warranty period- Inability to rectify- Deficiency in service alleged-District Forum dismissed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Complainant has not impleaded manufacturer as OP-complaint not maintainable without impleading manufacturer-No expert opinion regarding defects in mobile set has been placed by Complainant on record-Problems can arise while regular use of mobile and as ringer problem arose after almost 11 months, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect.

          10.     The contention taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party is that it is only the dealer of the said laptop manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1. Any of the alleged defects/manufacturing defects is only look into by the 1^st Opposite Party. In the context, the 2^nd Opposite Party has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd., V/s N.Siva Kumar reported in (2000) 10 SCC 654 wherein it is held that”

“An apprehension has been expressed by the dealer that the burden of this may ultimately fall upon the dealer. We make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable.

In the light of the decision cited supra, the liability of the 2^nd Opposite Party is NIL. Hence considering the oral evidence on record with reference to the decision cited supra, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

11.     POINT NO.2: In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 15^thJune2018).

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Jaswant Singh Airara.,who being the Complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Anx-A	Copy of the bill
Anx-B	The mail conversations

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

 

SamikSengupta., who being the Opposite Party No.1 was examined.

 

Kiran Kumar Adupa., who being the Opposite Party No.2 was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party

 

Anx-1

Copy of the Resolution of the Board

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)   PRESIDENT