Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/195/2017

Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	195/2017
Date of Institution	:	27.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	11/07/2017

 

                                       

                                                       

Meena r/o # 172/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh -160036.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Lenova India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doodenakund Village Marathhali Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post,Kr. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037.

 

2.     Sysnet Global Technologies, SCO 357, 2^nd Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh (now closed ) and shifted at

 

        Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SCO 2461-62, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh

 

3.     Binary Infotech Pvt. Ltd., SCO 50, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                 Sh.Pankaj Khullar, Adv. for OP No.1

                 OPs No.2 and 3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop from OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 22.01.2016 for Rs.28000/-, having warranty of one year.        It has been alleged that since May, 2016, the battery started draining from 64% to 6% within one minute.  She approached the Authorized Service Center i.e. OP No.2 who only installed one key optimizer software in the laptop and suggested for the calibration which usually takes 8-14 hours to complete the whole process but with a condition that the adapter is attached with the laptop.  As suggested by OP No.2, she started the said process at home all over again on 01.06.2016 and even a report was displayed on the system stating that the calibration was successful.  Thereafter, the laptop again started giving the same problem in September, 2016 and even after calibration, the problem was not resolved and, therefore, she requested OP No.2 for replacement of the battery but to no effect.  Rather, she was advised for battery calibration repeatedly.  According to the complainant, after the battery calibration, it started working properly in October, 2016.  Thereafter, she noticed that the battery was getting drained as and when it reached the minimum percentage at which the normal laptop functions properly.  She thus again approached the service center on 17.11.2016 for solution of the problem and requested it for the replacement of the battery. Even in the report it was clearly mentioned that the battery drained from 23% to 6% on 14.11.2016 and 25% to 6% on 17.11.2016. Even the service center retained the laptop for 2-3 days and on 21.11.2016, they confirmed that the laptop is working fine and if the same thing again happens then the complainant has to do the calibration process again.  According to the complainant, she again faced the same problem in December, 2016 and even she made a complaint on toll free number of Lenovo and she was assigned a complaint No.7007786162. Being annoyed and frustrated with the entire episode, she requested the Company to find a concrete solution as she cannot keep on running for fixing the problem time and again.  The officials of the Lenovo took the laptop in question on online access and updated the BIOs software and they confirmed that the problem in the laptop was fixed and the same was due to software issue.  According to the complainant, on 06.01.2017, the technician of the OPs checked the laptop in question but he failed to fix the problem.  It has been asserted by the complainant that the OPs have failed to replace the defective battery despite her repeated requests and writing of e-mails. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.             In its written statement, OP No.1 has pleaded that as per the record, no issue as alleged was reported to the OP/Service Center for the period from January, 2016 to November, 2016 i.e. for period of 11 months from the date of purchase of the laptop and the issue of battery was reported for the first time in November, 2016. It has further been pleaded that as per the battery report (Annexure C-2), the battery was working normally as it states battery is at high capacity.  It was denied that the complainant went to the service center in October, 2016. It has further been pleaded that the complainant never visited to the service center of the OP between the dates as mentioned in the complaint.  It has further been pleaded that admittedly, the laptop worked properly in October, 2016 which makes it clear that there was no issue with the laptop even after 10 months from the date of its purchase.  It has further been pleaded that the battery level from 23% to 6% on 16^th November was over a period of 12 minutes and due to already low battery level, the same is as per parameters for a 11 month old battery and depends on host of the factors like temperature, number of applications used, RAM etc.  It has further been pleaded that on 15.11.2016, the battery level went from 83% to only 59% in over 1 hour of use and on 16.11.2016 it went from 66% to 26% in over 2 hours use which shows that there was no sudden draining as alleged.  It has further been pleaded that  full diagnostic test of the laptop was run on 18.11.2016 by service center and the laptop passed the battery capacity test and all other tests which proves that the laptop as well as battery were in good condition. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         Despite due service through registered post, the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.04.2017.
4.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the documents on record. 
5.         After going through the pleadings of the parties and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.        
6.         As per the case of the complainant, the battery of the laptop in question started giving problem of drainage after few months of its purchase within the warranty period and the same was not improved even after carrying out the calibration process as suggested by the OPs. It has further been argued that she approached the service center of the OPs time and again but her grievance has not been redressed despite repeated requests.        
7.         On the other hand, the contention of OP No.1 is that the complainant had approached the service center only in the month of November, 2016 i.e. after about 11 months of the purchase of the laptop in question and prior to this no complaint regarding the drainage of the battery was ever made.  It has been argued by the learned Counsel for OP No.1 that full diagnostic test of the laptop in question was run on 18.11.2016 by service center and the laptop passed the battery capacity test and all other tests which proves that there is no defect in the laptop as well as battery and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  
8.         After going through the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to accept the plea of OP No.1 because the complainant has not placed on record any job sheet or letter/email prior to the month of November, 2016 to substantiate her version that the battery in question started giving problem after few months of its purchase, meaning thereby that the battery in question was functioning properly. Besides this, OP No.1 has also placed on record a full diagnostic test report of the laptop, in question, as Annexure-2 conducted by the Service Center on 18.11.2016 which proves that the laptop as well as the battery were in good condition and there was no defect in the system.   
9.          It is apt to mention here that the backup of the battery generally depends upon various factors i.e. temperature, number of applications run on the laptop, RAM etc. and as such it cannot be said that the battery in question is a defective one or having some manufacturing defect as alleged.          Moreover, the complainant has not able to place on record any expert evidence on record to prove that the battery in question was a defective one and the same is not functioning properly.
10.         In view of the above discussion, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Sd/-                                  sd/-

Announced		[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
11/07/2017		PRESIDENT	MEMBER