Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/842

Surbhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Yogesh Gandhi adv

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 842 of 21.11.2017.

Date of Decision            :   27.08.2021.

 

Surbhi, aged 26 years daughter of Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, resident of House No.181, Kidwai Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sec-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001.
2. Nitesh Communications, Sy N9s 241-244, 275-284, Panjerla (V) Kottur (M), Mahabubnagar, Dist. Hyderabad-509228, Telangana, India.
3. Lenovo Service Center, SCF-42F, BRS Nagar, Behind Oriental Cinema, Near Cfc Public School, Ludhiana, Punjab.

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    (Complaint U/s 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Sh. Lokesh Gupta, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sumant Tuteja, Advocate.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Exparte.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that on 08.12.2016, the complainant purchased one Lenovo Miix 3-830 tablet vide invoice No.TG-HYD7 142534881-23524 for a sum of Rs.10,534/- issued by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. through e-commerce site amazon.in. However, after three months, the complainant started facing problem with regard to the battery of the tablet as it was not charging properly. The complainant contacted service center in the month of March 2017 and lodged the complaint. As a result, the mother board was changed by the service center. In May 2017, the complainant had to appear in exam of Chartered Accountancy due to which she could not visit the service center of OP3. The complainant went to the service center in the month of August 2017 with the same issue and the officials at the service center changed the mother board again and replaced the batteries. It also issued job sheet mentioning the replacement of the mother board. On 24.08.2017, the complainant sent an email to Lenovo Customer Care asking for refund of Lenovo tablet, as even after the replacement of the mother board, the tablet was not working properly and the low battery issues continued. The complainant went to the service center again on 12.09.2017 with the same problem and requested for the replacement of the tablet or refund of the money. However, the official assured the complainant that the problem will not recur in future. As a result, the complainant took back the repaired tablet on 27.09.2017, but the problem of low battery backup persisted. The tablet had warrantee of one year till 07.12.2017. Despite many visits made by the complainant at the service center, the product could not be repaired. The complainant had bought the tablet so that she could get help in her studies, but said purpose could not be fulfilled. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to take back the tablet and refund the amount of Rs.10,534/- along with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.80,000/-  for having caused mental tension and harassment and other expenses incurred by the complainant for visiting the service center time and again.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint was, however, resisted by OP1. In the written statement filed by OP1, it has been pleaded that the complaint is baseless, misconceived and not maintainable and all the allegations made in the complaint are false and frivolous.  According to OP1, the repair of the tablet was carried out at the service centers and the mother board and battery was replaced free of costs. Therefore, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the terms of warrantee itself provides that if the service provider is unable to repair the product, it will be replaced with a product which is functionally equivalent.  The OP is ready to refund the costs of the tablet. On merits, it has been pleaded that a complaint was lodged on 19.05.2017 with the customer relationship management regarding the battery issue in the tablet on which the authorized service centre resolved the issue by replacing the main board free of costs and the product was returned to the complainant on 22.05.2017 in a good working condition. Similarly, in the month of August 2017, another complaint lodged by the complainant was resolved. The main board was replaced and the tablet was returned to the complainant on 21.08.2017. Again, another complaint was received on 12.09.2017, which was also resolved by the authorized service centre by replacing the mother board and tablet was returned back to the complainant on 27.09.2017. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. There was no manufacturing defect in the product as the product is sold in India after subjecting it to good quality check in accordance with the highest quality standards. However, OP1 offered a refund of the costs of the tablet to the complainant, but despite that the complainant has proceeded with the litigation. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C3 as well as  Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 and her counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 submitted affidavit Ex.OP1/A of Sh. Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Head-Services Excellence, Service & Support at Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd.  along with documents Ex. OP4 and OP5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through written arguments submitted on behalf of OP1 as well as gone through record very carefully.

7.                So far as the facts of the case are concerned there is not much of dispute about the same. It has been candidly admitted by OP1 in the written statement that the complainant lodged complaint with regarding to functioning of the tablet on 22.05.2017 and the authorized service center of the OPs repaired the product and returned the same to the complainant. It is also admitted that another complaint lodged by the complainant with regard to battery issues, the tablet was again repaired and returned to the complainant on 21.08.2017. It is also admitted that another complaint was lodged by the complainant with the customer relationship management on 12.09.2017 and the same was also resolved by the authorized service center by replacing the mother board and the product was returned back to the complainant on 27.09.2017. It is, therefore, apparent that within a period of 7-8 months from the date of purchase of the tablet, it had issues with regard to mother board and battery, which was admittedly replaced as many as three occasions. It has also candidly admitted by the OPs that an offer to refund the costs of the tablet was made to the complainant. It is, therefore, stands proved and even the OPs could not deny that the tablet was a defective one and it had problem with regard to functioning of the battery, which persisted despite it was repaired on as many as three occasions and some parts were also replaced. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to refund of the costs of the tablet along with composite compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OPs shall refund Rs.10,534/- to the complainant along with composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:27.08.2021

Gobind Ram.