Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/474/2021

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anil Kumar Garg Adv.

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	474/2021
Date of Institution	:	27.07.2021
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2024

 

                     

            

 

Sanjeev Kumar,Shop No.571, Motor Market, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: Ferns Icon, Level 2, Outer Ring Road, Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560037 through Its. Prop./Partner/Director/Manager.

2.  Reliance Retailer Ltd., Shop No.247, Second Floor, Elante Mall, Ind. Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Anil Kumar Garg, Counsel for the complainant OP No.1 exparte. Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel for OP No.2.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint stating therein that he purchased a laptop make Lenova from OP No.2 (authorized dealer) vide Invoice dated 12.10.2020 for Rs.90,746/-.  From the date of its purchase, the same developed many problems i.e. (i) laptop set becomes inoperative (hang) (ii) it becomes hot (iii) keyboard not functioning and he approached the OPs in this regard but they did not take any efforts to rectify the same. It has further been averred that inspite of making so many efforts for removal of the defects, the laptop has not been functioning properly and always giving problems. Lastly, he got served a legal notice dated 12.07.2021 upon the OPs requiring them to refund the price thereof  but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the price of the laptop along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon OP No.2, they appeared before this Commission and filed its written version taking preliminary objections regarding its maintainability. It has been admitted that the complainant purchased the laptop. It has been stated that it has limited role only of selling the product and is not at all responsible to fulfill the warranty obligations, given by the manufacturer of the product (OP No.1). They have no role to play in replacement or rectification of the defects in the laptop. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     Despite due service through registered post, OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.09.2022.
4.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
6.     The main issue involved in the present case is whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in selling the defective laptop (make laptop) in question or not?
7.     In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-
8.     It is observed from Annexure C-1 that the complainant had purchased a laptop make Lenova from OP No.2 (authorized dealer) vide invoice dated 12.10.2020 for Rs.90,746/-. It is further observed from the repair status invoices dated 26.04.2021 and 26.06.2021 (Annexures C-2 and C-3) that the laptop in question started giving problems after few months of its purchase. The complainant even wrote a detailed email dated 07.07.2021 regarding the non-functioning of the laptop and even requested the OPs to either provide a proper solution or to replace the defective unit or to refund its price.  Besides this, the complainant also got served a legal notice dated 12.07.2021 upon the OPs requiring the OPs to refund the price of the laptop in question but despite all this the OPs did not take any effective step to rectify the defects in the laptop. 
9.     Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the OPs have failed to rectify the actual defect in the laptop and that is why the same is not functioning properly despite its repairs.  Moreover, the complainant has lost faith in the product of the OPs and thus, it would be in interest of justice and equity to direct the OPs to refund its price to the complainant instead of its repairs.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua the OPs. The OPs are  directed to refund the price of the laptop i.e. Rs.90,746/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing its purchase till its actual realization. The complainant shall return the laptop in question along with its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.
11.     This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
12.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 18.01.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER