Delhi

North East

CC/397/2022

Mohd. Rizwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 397/2022

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mohd. Rizwan S/o Mohammad Sadakat R/o H.No. C 173, St. No. 1, Dilshad Masjid, Mushtafabad, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.	Lenovo RBD icon No.2, Doctor Punit, Rajkumar Road, DoddaneKundi, Mahadevapura, Bengluru, 560037   Lapcom Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Lenovo Exclusive Store G 4, Gadore House 51-52, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019   Ansul 125, First Floor, Vasisht Complex, Near Metro Piller No. 52, M.G Road, Sikanderpur Market, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		19.10.22 01.02.24 10.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 03.08.21 Complainant purchased a Lenovo Ideapad Gaming 3 Laptop from Lenovo Exclusive Store Nehru Place for the sum of Rs. 69,500/- from his brother’s SBI Bank credit card. After one month the said laptop started creating various issues such as battery issue, screening flickering, screen colour issues, black screen issues, keyboard issues, laptop charging issues etc.  On 18.01.22Complainant called customer care of Lenovo and they assured that they will resolve the issues through online mode but they provide temporary solution which not lasts. Then after two days the said laptop again started showing problems. Thereafter Complainant again called customer cares of Lenovo and they misbehaved. Then after two three time they accepted the complaint and told him that laptop was faulty piece and told Complainant that they resolve the issues without replacement. After two three weeks Complainant register a complaint and engineer namedAditya visited and replaced the motherboard of laptop but issues were not resolved. Thereafter Complainant calledAnsul (manager) who send him report and I found that engineer has put my fake signature on the report than I called the Mr. Ansul again that the sign on the report was not mine than Mr. Ansulcommitted that he will take necessary action against the fake sign by the engineer and he also assured me that he will resolve the issues facing my laptop. After some time another engineer visited to repair the said laptop but after sometime said laptop started facing another issues. Thereafter Complainant called an engineer who changed camera and microphone etc. and suggested for change of mother board. Then again the said laptop started to show other problem and during this the replacement warranty period is expired. The Complainant has also sentthem legal notice but of no use. Complainant has prayed to issue a fresh and working laptop or refund of Rs. 69,500/- along with to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation of harassment, mental agony and pain.
2. None has appeared on behalf Opposite Party No.2 and 3 despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 and 3 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 01.05.23.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted that the cost of the laptop was Rs. 58,220/- as per the copy of invoice and not Rs. 69,500/- as stated by the Complainant in his complaint.
4. Asper the data base of the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant had logged a call for the first time with the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 on 31.12.21 with issues relating to the app not responding. That the issue of the Complainant was resolved by the service personnel of the authorized service centre vide case ID no. 2004958968 which was resolved on the phone by itself.
5. Further as per the data base of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had logged another call on 17.01.22 with the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 in relation to battery backup issue vide case ID no. 20051372724. The Correct factual position is that the laptop of the Complainant was duly looked into wherein the Complainant was duly informed that the battery of the Complainant was working as per design and no hardware issue was found.
6. It is submitted that during a period of 5 months, the Complainant contacted the technical team of the Opposite Party No.1 multiple times for technical query. It is pertinent to mention there was no hardware issue found. That the Complainant had demanded an engineer visit and to address the grievances of the Complainant, an engineer carried out an onsite visit. That the laptop of the Complainant was thoroughly examined and the necessary part replacement of the Mother board was carried out vide work order bearing no. 4004265535 on 07.06.22 and the issue was resolved on 15.06.22.
7. It is further pertinent to mention that relevant question is that how did the customer come to know that the spare parts were missing. It is also to be questioned whether the machine was to be opened by the Complainant after the repair or opened in the outside market for verification. It is further pertinent to mention that if the laptop of the Complainant is opened by an unauthorized service partner or engineer the warranty becomes void as clearly provided under the terms and conditions of the limited warranty of the Opposite Party No.1. In view of the same the services cannot be provided free of cost under the limited warranty of the Opposite Party No.1. As regards the signature on the report, it is pertinent to mention that the same are digital signature and they cannot tally with the original signatures of the Complainant.
8. Further, as per the records of the Opposite Party No.1the Complainant had logged another complaint on 31.07.22 for camera issues vide case ID bearing no. 2007763386. That it is further pertinent to mention that to address the grievances of the Complainant, the engineer of the service personnel of the Opposite Party No. 1 visited the premises of the Complainant with EDP cable, camera and the camera was duly replaced under work order no. 4004837489.
9. It is pertinent to mention all times when ever the Complainant has reported to the service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 the grievances of the Complainant were duly looked into and the necessary rectification and part replacement were duly carried out. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. That it is pertinent to mention that as per the terms of the warranty, in the first instance the laptop is only required to be repaired. It is only when the repair is not possible that the same may be replaced with one that is at least functionally equivalent. In the present case, the service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 has rectified the problem by carrying out replacement necessary parts of the laptop free of cost under warranty and as such the Complainant is not entitled to the replacement of the laptop with another one. Further it is submitted that the Lenovo limited warranty states that

“If your service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product your service provider will replace it with one that is functionally equivalent.

If the service provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace your product, your sole remedy is to return your product to your place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of your purchase price.”

 

10. That to address the grievances of the Complainant the service engineer was deputed and carried out the replacement of the Mother Board on 10.08.22 vide SO No. 4004885903 and the OSRI (operating system Re Installation) was suggested. That after examination of the laptop by the service engineer of the Opposite Party No.1, the service personnel found no auto restart issue in safe mode of the laptop. That after thorough examination of the laptop, no hardware issue was also suspected and the engineer of the authorized service centre offereda revisit.  It is reiterated that all times when ever the Complainant has reported to the service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 his grievances of the Complainant were duly looked into and the necessary rectification and part replacement were duly carried out. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

11. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

12. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of Ms. Anita Kapoor, General Counsel Director legal at Opposite Party No.1wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

13. We have heard theComplainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No.1.  The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a Lenovo laptop from Lenovo Exclusive Store on 03.08.21 for sum of Rs. 69,500/-. It is also the case of the Complainant that within the one month of the purchase of the said laptop, it started creating various issues such asbattery issue, screening flickering, screen colour issues, black screen issues, keyboard issues, laptop charging issues etc. On 18.01.22 Complainant took up the matter with customer care of Opposite Party No.1 and they resolve the issue through online but temporary solution was not lasts. During the various visits by the representative of Opposite Party, Opposite Party replaced the motherboard of the laptop and also replaced camera and microphone.Even after replacing the parts of the said laptop, the laptop was not functioning properly. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
14. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that it is admitted that Complainant purchased laptop but cost of the laptop was Rs. 58,220/- not Rs. 69,500/- as stated by the Complainant in his complaint. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that they have received various complaints from the Complainant regarding malfunctioning of the said laptop. On receiving the complaints from time to time they have resolved issues like the motherboard and camera, and other defective parts of the said laptop and they have replaced the defective parts of said laptop from time to time. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that in view of the limited warranty of the product they have under obligation to repair the laptop in case product is not repairable then they have to replace the product. In this case they have repaired the laptop from time to time. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1.
15. It is clear from the above that Complainant purchased a new laptop from the Opposite Party No.1and within one year of purchase of said laptop Opposite Party has changed motherboard twice and also replaced other parts of the laptop like camera etc.
16. In our considered opinion, when a person buy a new laptop or some other product it is expected that the product will work properly at leastfor a reasonable period. In this case as admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 they have replaced various parts of the said laptop with one year of purchase of said laptop. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
17. The present complaint is covered under Section 6 (ii)of the CPA 2019 which is as under:

“(6) “complaint” means any allegation in writing, made by a Complainant for obtaining any relief provided by or under this act,

• (i) ….....

(ii) The goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects,”

18. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the cost of the laptop in question of Rs. 58,220/-to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery and Complainant is directed to return the defective laptop to the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 %p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
19. Order announced on 10.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President