DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No. 80 of 20-04-2021

Decided on :12-4-2023

Deepinder Singh S/o Devinder Singh, R/o H.No. 2605, Sucha Singh Street, near Mehna Chowk, Bathinda Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda.

​........Complainant

Versus

1. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Level-2, Firms I-Con Doddenakundi Village Marathhalli outer ring road. K.R. Puram Hobli Bangalore Pin-560037 (Opposite Hotel Seven), Karnataka through its authorized person.

2. Satyam Computers, near Shree Annpurna Mandir, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 Ex-parte.

Sh. Shanky Jindal, for OP No.2

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Deepinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased Lenovo Laptop IP S 340 81WL 002RIN from opposite party No.2 videde invoice No. GST 0190 dated 12.06.2020 for a consideration of Rs.61000/- + Rs.1000/- total Rs.62000/- and paid Rs.1,000/ extra for extended warranty for two years.

3. It is alleged that there was a manufacturing defect in the said laptop. There was problem of Audio and the laptop overheats and drains the battery very fast. The complainant immediately contacted opposite party No. 2 and they suggested the complainant to replace the laptop with superior version i.e IP S 540 81NE 003 GIN. As per the advise of opposite party No. 2, the complainant got replaced the laptop and paid extra cost i.e Rs.7500/- and Bill No. GST 0245 dated 23.06.2020 was issued and the complainant spent Rs.68000/- + Rs.1500/- i.e total Rs.69500/- for new laptop. The complainant was given one year warranty by opposite party No.2 and at the time of purchase, opposite parties got deposited Rs.1000/- from the complainant for two years extended warranty.

4. The complainant alleged that new laptop was also having manufacturing defect and getting too hot/overheat and drains the battery very fast, even in AC environment. The charger of the Laptop also stopped working. The complainant intimated the opposite parties through emails but no satisfactory reply was received. The complainant also requested the opposite parties to refund the price of the laptop but they refused to do so.

5. It is alleged that complainant purchased the laptop for online classes of his son who is student of 9th class in St. Xavier's school, Bathinda and his work suffered a lot because of faulty laptop. At the time of purchase one year warranty was given by the retailer but their system is showing warranty upto 11.08.2020. As such the opposite parties played a fraud on the complainant and handed over a repaired laptop instead of new one, after charging full price of new laptop. When the opposite parties did not respond to the requests and emails of the complainant then he got served a legal notice dated 19.10.2020 on 20.10.2020 calling upon them to make payment of Rs. 90,600/- in this regard, but the opposite parties have given false reply and on 31.03.2021, the claim of the return of laptop and refund of price of laptop was declined and only offer for FOC repair plus three months warranty extension was given which is not acceptable to the complainant. The laptop is not in working condition and only lying with the complainant as closed.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant have prayed directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 98,200/- i.e. Rs. 69,500/- being cost of laptop, Rs.1000/- paid for extended warranty and Rs.20,000/- on account of work suffered and mental harassment and Rs.7700/- as litigation expenses.

7. Registered notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 1.

8. Opposite party No.2 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act'; complainant has concealed the fact that opposite party No. 2 sold the laptop in question, manufactured by opposite party No.1 and the liability, if any, is only of opposite party No.1; complainant is not consumer of opposite party No. 2; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.

9. On merits, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that it is the authorized distributor of Lenovo company and warranty of the product as provided by opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 2 denied that it assured the complainant for counter replacement of Laptop as alleged.

10. It has been pleaded that complainant purchased one laptop on 12.06.2020 for Rs.61,000/- with Rs.1000/- for extra extended warranty for two years, from opposite party No. 2 which was manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.l. The opposite party No. 2 denied that complainant got replaced the laptop on the advice of opposite party No. 2. It has been pleaded that laptop was replaced with superior quality at the request of complainant. The opposite party No. 2 also denied that there is any manufacturing defect or hot and drains battery very fast or that the charge of the laptop stopped working. It has been pleaded that complainant has failed to place on record any cogent proof or report of any software or technical engineer regarding alleged manufacturing defect. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 19.4.2021 (Ex. C-14) and documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13).

12. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhupesh Tangri dated 14.9.2021 (Ex.OP-2/1) and closed the evidence.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

14. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

15. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit and Tax Invoices Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and had also placed on record Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-9 reply to legal notices filed by the opposite parties. As per final reply Ex. C-9, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant is entitled to warranty and engineer of the opposite parties tried to repair the laptop of the complainant but he refused and since the Laptop in question is under warranty and not guarantee, as such, the same cannot be ordered to be replaced. To rebut the contention of the counsel for the opposite parties, counsel for the complainant had made reference to the report Ex. C-13 who is independant technician and has checked the said Laptop and found that Laptop is having manufacturing defect and required replacement. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties had not questioned the expert report Ex. C-13 by making any application to cross examine the said expert meaning thereby that opposite parties admitted the report submitted by complainant. Accordingly, complainant has fully established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by having sold defective Laptop.

16. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the Laptop with new one failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 70,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

17. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

19. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    12-04-2023

    ( Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member