BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 110/2015 Filed on 16.03.2015

ORDER DATED: 30.08.2017

Complainant:

Sanoop. K, Keluchettiyante vida House, Kariyadu South P.O, Kariyadu Theru, Kannur, Pin-673 316

                                       (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr.Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560 037.

(By Adv. Deepu. K.V)

2. Hitech Informatics Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Lenovo Service Centre, Near Sastha Temple, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
3. Nikshan Electronics, Nikshan Arena, Bank Road, Kanuur-670 001.

(By Adv. Narayan. R)

This case having been heard on 21.07.2017, the Forum on 30.08.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant purchased a Lenovo G 500 laptop on 11.09.2013 from the 3^rd opposite party for which he paid Rs. 33,200/-.  The said laptop is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and is serviced by the 2^nd opposite party.  Certain defects were noted by the complainant on the laptop during the month of 2014 and so he approached the 2^nd opposite party for its rectification.  They identified that the problem is with the motherboard and they replaced the motherboard.  But within a month the same problem occurred, again he approached the 2^nd opposite party and they promised him to replace it.  But nothing happened so he approached this Forum claiming refund and compensation. 

Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed version.  1^st opposite party, the manufacturer took the following contentions.  This opposite party disputes the maintainability of the complaint upon jurisdictional basis.  The complainant is a resident of Kannur District.  He had purchased the laptop from Kannur.  The entire cause of action is seen happened at Kannur only.  During the warranty period this opposite party cured all the alleged defects without any charges.  The attempt of the complainant is to get warranty benefit after the expiry of warranty.  If any complaint happened during the warranty period this opposite party is liable to give service and replace parts without cost.  The complainant admitted that, the same was done by this opposite party.  After the warranty period the complainant had to pay for the service, and in the present case he was not ready for the same.  There is negligence on the part of the complainant and he is not entitled for any compensation for any defects which was happened due to his negligence in producing the laptop for repair in proper time.  Complainant used the laptop with the alleged complaints.  There is no complaint regarding the functioning of the laptop.  There is no manufacturing defect to the product manufactured by this opposite party.  Complainant not produced any expert evidence.  There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.  Regarding the purchase of laptop and the warranty the complainant should adduce strict evidence.  This opposite party denies the claim that the system was under warranty.  There is no case to the complainant that the laptop was complaint when the same was purchased.  Complaints, if any, happened due to the negligent use of the same by the complainant.  Even if there is any complaint to the computer the complainant should have approached any authorized service centre of this opposite party.  Instead of the same the complainant is still keeping the same and using the same.  It can be presumed from the pleading in the petition that even now the complainant is in possession of the laptop and is using the same.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief for any defects which was happened due to his negligence in producing the laptop for repair in proper time.  Hence this opposite party is not liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Complainant was not ready to repair the laptop when he produced the same for the last time.  It is stated in the complaint also.  The laptop is not made available to this opposite party by the complainant in proper time who is insisting for replacement and compensation.  If the machine is examined it may be seen that the same had suffered damages due to lack of maintenance and using the same with complaints for which complainant himself is responsible. 

2^nd opposite party was set exparte. 

Version of 3^rd opposite party reads as follows:  This opposite party contends that the complaint lacks territorial jurisdiction before this Forum as the complainant is a resident of Kannur District and as the laptop was not purchased within the jurisdiction of this Forum and raises the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.  This opposite party submits that the complainant might have purchased a laptop on 11.09.2013, but denies the contention of the complainant that the laptop was having any sort of complaint as the complainant has never approached this opposite party after the date of purchase with such a complaint.  So this opposite party was never aware of such a complaint till the receipt fo the summons from this Forum and so the complainant is put to strict proof regarding the complaint of the laptop.  This opposite party submits that as they are only the dealer of the laptop, and as this opposite party is in no way connected with the service matters and regarding the warranty period and no relief is sought against this opposite party, this opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint. 

Issues:

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
2. Whether the allegation of manufacturing defect is proved?
3. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) to (iii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6.  He was examined as PW1.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite party.  An expert was appointed from this Forum to ascertain the defects of the laptop, for which he filed a report which was marked as Ext. C1.  Ext. C1 clearly points out the defects of the laptop which goes on reading as: (1) The physical damage found in the airvent of the laptop is due to mishandling of the system.  The complainant alleging that the same is due to the mishandling that took place at the service centre during maintenance.  (2) The hinge on the laptop that is found broken is due to opening of the system by unskilled technicians.  As the complainant submitted that no persons other than the authorized service centres are maintained the laptop the same was happened in the service centre.  To add further, the persons attended the proceeding who are claimed to be the service experts were not able to open the laptop properly during the proceedings.  (3) The non-working of the laptop is due to the faulty mother board.  By replacing the motherboard will resolve the problem. 

Observations: The physical examination of the system has revealed that certain damages as referred above has occurred and it is attributable to the service technician due to inefficient handling of the laptop.  It is also seen that the motherboard has been replaced two times.  So altogether three motherboards have gone faulty during one year of usage.  There may be two causes for the problem ; either the motherboards that were replaced are of inferior quality, or the service centre has not replaced the motherboard as claimed by them, in the absence of facility to verify replacement by new motherboard.  The lamination sheet are fixed on top of each motherboard as an inbuilt part.  But breakages were noticed in the lamination sheet from which it can be inferred that a reconditioned motherboard is presently fitted inside the laptop (not a new one).  Nothing is there to contradict the findings in Ext. C1.  So we are accepting the report as such.  Expert clearly states that the hinge of the laptop is seen broken due to opening of it by unskilled technicians, and further he adds that at the time of his inspection also, the persons, who represent the opposite parties, as service experts were not able to open the laptop properly and there were many breakages in the lamination sheet fixed on the top of each motherboard, which is an inbuilt one, which clearly proves that a reconditioned motherboard is there inside the laptop.  For the lack of expertise and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties, the poor complainant was forced to run from pillar to post, who depends mostly on the laptop for his preparation for civil service examination.  So the complainant is eligible for refund of the purchase price along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for his mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost, since he had taken out an expert opinion to prove his case. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund Rs. 33,180/- (as per Ext. P4) to the complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and Rs. 3,000/- as costs within 2 months of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% till the date of realization. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of August 2017.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 110/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Sanoop. K

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of customer carry in service Report dated 12.06.2014

P2     - Copy of customer carry in service Report dated 21.07.2014

P3     - Copy of Carry in Centre Acknowledgement slip

P4     - Copy of invoice dated 11.09.2013

P5     - Copy of mail

P6     - Copy of mail sent by O.P

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

  V     COURT EXHIBIT:

          C1     - Commission Report

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb