Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/814

Gajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

compl.in person

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 814 of 08.11.2017

Date of Decision       : 14.11.2019 

Gajinder Singh Chadha aged 70 years s/o S.Kartar singh Chadha r/o 21-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana-141002.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037.

2.Lenovo  Service Center M/s Flextronics Mobile Super Market-2^nd Floor, SCF-42, Block-F, BRS Nagar, Backside Orient Cinema, near CFC Public School, Ludhiana, Punjab-141003.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant             :         In person

For OP1                         :         Sh.Yogesh Bhardwaj, Advocate Junior to Sh.Amit

Rai, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.(Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate)

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                          Complainant purchased Lenovo Idea Pad MIIX 310 10CR from Ecommerce website of www.amazon.in on 29.12.2016. That tablet worked properly for around six months, but thereafter, problem erupted in the charging of tablet. Even problem with the display screen was faced and that is why complainant visited the authorized service centre of Op1 i.e. Op2. Complainant was referred by OP2, the service centre, to their Bangalore office and replacement was done after around one month. Even after one month, some problem erupted and tablet was again handed over to Op2 on 11.10.2017. That tablet being within the warranty period was again sent to OP1. Complainant was disclosed that information will be given to him as and when the repair of tablet takes place. This tablet was not received till date. As company keeps on changing the models and old models becomes obsolete and replacement does not become available and as such, complainant prays for refund of price of tablet i.e. amount of Rs.16,990/-. Even penalty sought to be imposed on Op1, so that it may be not dare to harass the senior citizens.

2.                Op2 is ex-parte in this case.

3.                Op1 filed written reply by claiming that Mr.Chandan Kumar Ganguly, the authorized representative is filing the written reply. Averments of complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. Rather, it is claimed that Op1 duly honoured the warranty claims and repaired the tablet, free of costs. Op1 always aims at customer satisfaction because the same is its first priority. Complaint alleged to be devoid of any merit. Allegation regarding purchase of tablet through online not denied specifically. Op1 claims that on validating with the authorized service centre, a call was logged on 22.8.2017, through which report regarding touch pad issue was submitted. That problem was resolved by the service centre by replacing the liquid crystal display module (LCD), free of cost within the warranty period. The complaint was closed on 31.8.2017. On validating with the authorized service centre, a call was logged on 11.10.2017 again through which report regarding battery not charging was made and service centre resolved the same problem by replacing the tablet’s main board free of cost under the warranty. Thereafter, issue of main board and camera raised and that issue even resolved by    the service centre by replacing the main board and camera. That service request was closed on 29.10.2017. There was a communication between the complainant and customer care, vide which, complainant was informed to collect the device, because issues have been resolved, but the complainant refused to oblige by way of collecting the repaired tablet. Rather, complainant is having intention of seeking refund. Refund is permissible only if authorized service centre is either unable to repair or replace the parts of respective machine. Every electronic product is software driven. Method of its usage is very critical determinant of its length of  usability. Such  electronic product    is prone to be have minor issue is a common phenomenon in the field of electronic and digital computing. Minor issues are faced due to wear and tear or non-usage in accordance with the instructions manual. However, it is claimed that as a goodwill gesture, Op1 willing to offer the refund to the complainant.

4.                Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Prabhakar Tiwari, Authorized Representative of OP2 along with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Though, earlier Op2 was proceeded against ex-parte, but permission to join him in the proceedings was granted at the stage, when the case was going on at the time of filing of application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings. As the case was at the stage of leading of evidence by Ops and as such Op2 was allowed to lead evidence, but without obtaining of written reply.

7.                Counsel for OP1 suffered statement that written statement filed by Op1 may be read as evidence of OP1 and he is not to produce any more evidence.

8.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for the parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

9.                From the pleadings of the parties and submitted affidavits as well as invoice Ex.C1, it is made out that complainant purchased tablet in question online through platform of Amazon by paying price of Rs.14,490/-, because discount of Rs.2500/- was allowed on the total gross price of Rs.16,990/-. In view of offer of goodwill gesture of refund of price given through written reply by OP1, it is obvious that entitlement of complainant for refund is of Rs.14,490/- only, Admittedly, tablet in question is lying with the service centre of OP1, because it is claimed in the written reply of OP1 itself that complainant though was called upon to receive the repaired tablet, but he refused to accept the same.

10.              Certainly, perusal of written reply submitted by Op1 reveals as if defects in the tablet occurred thrice. Even complainant had to enter into correspondence with Ops as revealed by contents of Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and as such, it is obvious that complainant was harassed mentally. Liability for replacement or refund remains of the manufacturer, which admittedly is Op1 and as such liability for refund of price amount of Rs.14,490/- remains of OP1 and not of any other Ops. The problem in the tablet in question faced by the complainant at least on three occasions within the warranty period   and replacement of major portion namely main board took place twice and as such it is obvious that virtually product in question is defective one and that is why complainant is not under obligation to receive back the repaired tablet  because after expiry of warranty period, he will be left with no other option except to carry on with the defective tablet itself. In view of harassment caused to the complainant by OP1, he is entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount by keeping in view the price of the tablet and also the fact that Ops offered free of cost service by way of replacement of defective parts at least on three occasions.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP1 to refund the received amount of Rs.14,490/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1. Complaint against OP2 however is dismissed. Payment of compensation and litigation amount be made by OP1 to complainant within 30 days from today. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                  President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:14.11.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.