Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/124/2019

Paramjit Singh Saggoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Hemender Goswani & N.S. Jagdeva Adv.

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	124 of 2019
Date of Institution	24.06.2019
Date of Decision	05.11.2019

Paramjit Singh Saggoo S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh Saggoo, Resident of H.No.900, Sector 91, Mohali, Punjab.                     

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus
 

1.     Lenovo India Pvt. Limited, Vatika Business Park, 1st Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana, through its Regional Manager.

2.     The Manager, Croma, Infiniti Retail Limited, SCO No.1094-1095, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                                ....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

                            

Argued by:

 

Sh. N.S.Jagdeva, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Vikas Kumar, Assistant Department Manager of respondent No.2.

(Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 10.09.2019).

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.390 of 2018.

2.             Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that if there was no inherent defect in the laptop then what was the necessity to change the hard disk of the laptop, in question and also to offer replacement of the laptop. Qua expert evidence, he has further submitted that the Forum has failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the court to receive the best evidence for proper adjudication of the case. He further submitted that the Forum failed to appreciate that if the said laptop was working properly then there was no need to purchase a new laptop. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside impugned order. 

3.             On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.1 and Assistant Department Manager of respondent No.2 submitted that the appellant/complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in the said laptop, so the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

4.             After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

5.             The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of invoice dated 05.08.2017. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased a laptop make Lenovo vide invoice dated 05.08.2017 for the sum of Rs.49,990/- alongwith carry case of Rs.999/- from Opposite Party No.2/respondent No.2. It is the admitted fact that the complainant visited 2-3 times to the service centre of the Company and all the times, the defects were rectified free of charge by the Opposite Parties. Even the job sheets placed on record by the complainant clearly reveals that there were minor issues, for which, software updation was required, which were done free of charge. At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellant/complainant strongly demanded replacement of the laptop or refund of the amount of laptop, as there was some inherent manufacturing defect. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record any document/report of expert witness to prove that the said laptop was having manufacturing defect. The onus was upon the complainant to prove some manufacturing defect in the laptop but he did not do so. Moreover, the plea of the appellant that it is the duty of the court to receive the best evidence for proper adjudication of the case. It may be stated here that the Court cannot move here & there to collect some evidence to prove the case of the complainant but it is the duty of the complainant to prove it as manufacturing defect by filing expert evidence. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as “Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile and Tata Motors Ltd., Revision Petition No.3973 of 2012, decided on 06.11.2012”, the relevant portion of the said order reads thus :-

X X X X  The report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect have been adduced. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service station for one or two times does not ipso fact prove the manufacturing defect. Due to lack of evidence, the value of the petitioner’s case evanesces.”

It is important to note here that neither the report of any Engineer nor any expert evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that the laptop, in question, suffered from manufacturing defect. The onus was upon the complainant to prove that the laptop purchased by him was suffering from a manufacturing defect. The responsibility of the manufacturer/dealer was to repair the laptop and replace the defective part, if any, during the warranty period. In the absence of technical evidence, it would be difficult to say that the laptop purchased by the complainant suffered from a manufacturing defect.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

7.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

November 5^th,   2019.                        

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

                                                                MEMBER

 

rb