Smt. Shashi Bansal filed a consumer case on 15 Jun 2018 against Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/620/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Jun 2018.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/620/2017
Smt. Shashi Bansal - Complainant(s)
Versus
Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Vikas Jain
15 Jun 2018
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
1] Lenovo India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at Ferns Icon, Level-2, Daddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Post Kr. Puram Hobli, Bangalore (Bengaluru)-560037.
2nd Address: Vatika Business Park, First Floor, Badshapur Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon (Gurugram)-122018.
2] Rahul Agarwal, Managing Director, Lenovo India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at Ferns Icon, Level-2, Daddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Post Kr. Puram Hobli, Bangalore (Bengaluru)-560037.
3] Sysnet Global Technologies, Authorized Service Centre, through its Managing Director/ Partner/ Proprietor, SCO 2461-62, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
4] Binary Infotech Private Limited, through its Director, having its Office at SCO No.50, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.
…… Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR
PRESIDENT
MRS.SURJEET KAUR
MEMBER
SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA
MEMBER
ARGUED BY
:
None for Complainant.
:
None for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
:
OPs No.3 and 4 ex-parte.
PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER
Smt. Shashi Bansal, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Lenovo India Private Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that she had purchased a Laptop of Lenovo Company for her personal use and other day-to-day affairs from Opposite Party No.3 vide invoice dated 22.08.2016 after making payment of Rs.79,500/-. Within few days of its purchase, the touch pad of the said Laptop stopped working. A Complaint was lodged with Opposite Party No.3 on 22.09.2016, whose Service Engineer updated the Drivers of the system on 27.09.2016 (Annexure C-2), pursuant whereof the Touchpad of the Laptop started working. Notwithstanding this, the said problem continued to be persisted in the Laptop and despite lodging a number of Complaints (Annexure C-3 to C-10), the genuine grievance of the Complainant was never resolved to her satisfaction. Apart from this, the Complainant kept on sending e-mails to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-11 colly), highlighting her grievances, but the same did not fructify. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the Complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, pleading that they after detailed study and examination of the Laptop concluded that the issue was with the OS and there was no hardware defect therein. The Laptop was working fine, but it was an issue with Complainant’s expectation since the beginning of the issue reported. The Service Centre had taken the machine to keep it under observation for any alleged hardware issues and no issues were found in the Laptop whilst its custody with Service Centre, which implied that Complainant was making some changes to software/not using the Laptop with care which was causing repeated issues. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and counter affidavits.
We have gone through the entire evidence with utmost care and circumspection.
Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the subject Laptop on 22.08.2016 vide Annexure C-1 from M/s Binary Infotech Pvt. Limited (Opposite Party No.4) for a total sale consideration of Rs.79,500/-. It has come on record that the said Laptop started giving problem from 27.09.2016 and various futile attempts have been made by the Opposite Parties No.3, which is the authorized service centre of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to set right the problems therein. The Complainant has placed on record various job-sheets to substantiate the said fact. This fact has not been refuted by the Opposite Parties in their written version. Needless to mention here that protracted correspondence have also been exchanged interse the parties with regard to the issues/problems in the Laptop. Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Parties have failed to repair the subject laptop to the utmost satisfaction of the Complainant. At any rate, when the Laptop started giving problems, the same was well within its warranty. In this backdrop, we feel that when the Laptop was within its warranty, the Opposite Parties are bound to honour their warranty by either replacing the defective unit or to set it right to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant, which they failed to do. In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is thus established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have repair/replace the subject Laptop, being within the warranty period, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are, jointly & severally, directed:-
[a] To refund Rs. 79,500/- being the invoice price of the Laptop to the Complainant, along with interest @7% per annum from the date of purchase, till it is actually paid;
[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.
[c] To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.
The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
The Complainant shall return the defective Laptop in question, if it is in her possession, to the Opposite Party No.3, after the compliance of the order.
The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Announced
15.06.2018
Sd/-
(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)
MEMBER
“Dutt”
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.