BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.698/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

MRS.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Pallavi Tomar

W/o Tarun Bhambra,

Aged about 32 years,

Residing at No.283,

Behind Bethany High School,

(Rep by Sri.Mirza Faizan Assad, Adv)

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Lenovo,

M/s Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd.,

Ferns Icon Level 2,

Doddenakundi Village,

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,

Marathahalli,

K.R.Puram Hobli,

Bangalore-560037,

Represented by it’s

Managing Director.

(Rep. by Sri.K.V.Omprakash, Adv)

2. Tech-Connect Retail Private Limited,

Sy.No.696, Gundlapochampally Village,

Medchal Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District,

******

//ORDER//

SRI.Shivarama,K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.58,990/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as the fee incurred towards litigation expenses as costs and for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income and harassment faced by the complainant as compensation and such other reliefs, as this commission may deem fit. 

 2. The opposite party no.2 is placed ex-parte.  Opposite party No.1 had filed reply and contested the case.

      3. It is not in dispute that on 15.03.2018 the complainant had purchased Yoga Lenovo Core i5 7^th Gen520 two in one laptop IMEI/SERIAL No.SMP1B6NAQ from Tech-Connect Retail Private Limited by placing an order through Flipkart.  Further it is also not in dispute that there was defect in the laptop i.e., in the touch screen and the same was replaced by new LCD to the said laptop.  Further it is also not in dispute that the opposite party no.1 office had visited the complainant’s place and made observation over the said laptop and found that there was defect in the camera and the same was replaced by the opposite party No.1.  Further it is not in dispute that subsequently the charger did not work properly and the opposite party no.1 had given a new charger to the said laptop by substituting the older one. 

4. The complainant is an online medical practitioner.   It is the further case of the complainant that on 15.03.2018 she had purchased the above said laptop and within a month of delivery of laptop she found defect and brought to the notice of the same on 05.04.2018 with regard to the touch screen.  Hence the complainant had raised the complaint about the defective product, as there were several failures in the product and had requested for replacement of the defective product and the opposite party no.1 had failed to address the core issue and replace the defective device sold by opposite party no.2.  On 17.01.2019 the complainant had lodged the complaint with Consumer Commission (Docket No.1106599).  Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 had sent an engineer to the complainant’s home on 28.01.2019 and confirmed that the device was faulty.  Hence because of the defective product the complainant had faced lot of problems and has incurred huge loss.  Further on 14.03.2019 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party and opposite party no.1 had replied to the said legal notice by making baseless observations.  Hence the present complaint came to be filed. 

5. Oppsite party no.1 appeared on 07.06.2019 and had filed the version on 19.07.2019.   The opposite party no.1 denied the averments of the complaint other than the admissions made as stated above.  It is the further case of the opposite party no.1 that it has repaired the laptop whenever required and the authorized service center has rectified the problem by carrying out the repairs and had given the desired services.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled either for replacement within a new one or for the refund of the cost and any compensation, since opposite party no.1 had carried out the necessary repairs free of cost under warranty.  Hence there is no negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 and considering their standing and repute in the market, the opposite party no.1 is offering to refund the amount of the laptop as a gesture of goodwill and in good faith.  Further as per the warranty terms and conditions, the laptop is entitled to only service and after following a series of steps if the machine involves a serious error then only in exceptional circumstances it is to be replaced with a new one.  Hence, the attitude of the complainant clearly shows the intention to create a false case and spoil the image of the opposite party.  Hence, it is sought for a direction to the complainant to return the used laptop and the opposite party no.1 offering for refund of the cost of the laptop.

6. To prove the case of the parties, the complainant had filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P9 documents.  The representative of opposite party no.1 had filed affidavit in the form of his evidence and got marked EX.R1 to R6 documents.

          7. We have heard the arguments from the opposite party no.1 side.  Opposite party no.1 had filed written arguments and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service by the opposite parties ?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought ?

iii) What order ?

8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  Affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3:   as per the final order for the following;

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1 & 2:- In order to avoid the repetition of facts, I have discussed both the points together. The complainant and the representative of opposite party no.1 have reiterated the facts stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  EX.P1 is the invoice for having purchased the laptop.  On perusal of the same, it appears that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.58,990/- as cost of the laptop.  Hence, the Complainant was a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of S-2(7) of Consumer Protection Act-2019. EX.P2 and EX.P3 are one and the same and it was issued by opposite party no.1.  On perusal of the same, it appears that opposite party no.1 had noticed touch screen issue and the same was rectified on 10.04.2018.  Further EX.P3 and EX.R4 are one and the same.  This document indicates that there was an issue with regard to web camera.  EX.P4 is the correspondence dt.28.12.2018 made by opposite party no.1 with the complainant stating that it had deputed a Senior Engineer to get the issue fixed.  EX.P5 is the correspondence in between the complainant and opposite party no.1.  EX.P7 is the notice sent by the complainant through her advocate to the opposite party no.1 & 2.  It is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 that it is only when the repair is not possible replacement of the laptop with one that is least functionally equivalent is permitted, further the authorized service center of opposite party no.1 has rectified the problem by carrying out the repairs and had given desired services.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to either for replacement with a new one or the refund towards the cost of the laptop, as the machine was within warranty period. 

10. Further it is contended that the complainant instead of covering all the stages as mentioned in the warranty, directly demanded for refund but as per Lenovo warranty guidelines, there was no request by the complainant for installation of software and performing the full diagnose of device which are an essential step towards demanding for a replacement. 

11. On perusal of the records, it appears that the complainant was a clinical psychologist.  According to her, main purpose of purchasing this laptop was to use the pen for keeping notes and the promised quality by Lenovo.  Further it appears that number of times the complainant had informed about the defect in the laptop and opposite party no.1 had rectified the defect.  We feel the defect in touch screen, web camera and charger is a major one.  Further it is the contention of the complainant that even though new charger was provided still the laptop was not working.  Hence, it appears that the defective laptop was sold to the complainant by the opposite parties.  Further in the written arguments as well as in the affidavit filed by the representative of opposite party no.1 in the form of his evidence in chief he has categorically stated that opposite party no.1 was ready to refund the amount of the laptop in good faith.  Hence, we feel there is defect in the product supplied to the complainant within the meaning of Section-2(10) of Consumer Protection Act-2019 and no proper service was given by the opposite party no.1 in removing the defects of the product.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 as contemplated u/s 2(11) of Consumer Protection                 Act-2019.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the cost of the laptop of Rs.58,990/-. 

12. The complainant has sought interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as the fee incurred towards litigation expenses.  We feel the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is in higher end and interest at the rate of 8% p.a. would meet the justice.  Further, we feel the litigation expenses sought by the complainant at Rs.15,000/- is an excessive one.  We feel she is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in that head.  Further the complainant has sought direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income and harassment faced by the complainant as compensation.  The complainant is a Doctor by profession and according to her, she had purchased the laptop for the purpose of keeping confidential patient notes and taking online sessions to her patients.    Further because of defect in the laptop she could not do online medical practice and it hampered her profession.  She has not produced any documents with regard to the patients she had attended in her regular business.  Hence, on the basis of averments made in the affidavit alone it cannot be said that she was a busy doctor in her routine work as a doctor.  Further, definitely she had sustained unnecessary mental trauma and harassment and it affected in her regular duty.  Therefore, we feel she is entitled for compensation but not compensation as claimed.  It is also not in dispute that opposite party no.1 had carried out some of the defects notified by the Complainant.  Hence, we feel the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income and harassment.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 & 2 partly in affirmative.
13. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above by exercising the power u/s 39 of Consumer Protection Act-2019, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.58,990/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.

Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses  and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income and harassment.  In case this total sum of Rs.30,000/- is not paid within 30 days, it carries interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of order till realization.  The complainant is directed to return laptop to the opposite parties.  The parties shall comply the direction within 30 days from the date of the order. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 16^th day of March, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

                                 //ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Smt.Pallavi Tomar, the complainant has filed her affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Tax Invoice dt.15.03.2018 issued by opposite party no.1 to the complainant.
2. The onsite service call report dt.07.04.2018 and 14.09.2018 issued by Lenovo.
3. Copies of email communications which are at document No.4 & 5 annexed to the list of document dt.24.04.2019 filed along with the complaint.
4. The grievance detail in respect of the complaint No.1106599 dt.17.01.2019.
5. Copy of the legal notice dt.14.03.2019.
6. Copies of the postal receipts.
7. Legal notice sent to the opposite party no.2 has been returned undelivered.
8. The undelivered RPAD cover.
9. The interim reply dt.22.03.2019 issued the opposite party no.1.
10. Copy of the mail communication dt.10.05.2019.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Sri.Shahid Hussain, Customer Support Engineer of opposite party has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Authorization Letter 08.07.2020.
2. Copy of Lenovo limited warranty-terms and conditions.
3. Copy signed service proof as on 10.04.2018.
4. Copy of signed service reports as on 17.09.2018 and 20.09.2019.
5. Copy of E-mail.
6. Copy of reply of legal notice received.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•