SRI NILAKANTHA PANDA, PRESIDENT

                The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”), on dated 03/11/2021, alleging both “defect in good & deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Proprietor-cum-owner of Mama Computer, OP No.2 to 5 are Lenovo India Private Limited of different locations & capacities. That, as per the complainant’s petition the cause of action arose on the event of refusal for replacement of goods on dated 05/10/2021. 

                That upon admission of the present case, the Ops were appropriately noticed along with copy of the complaint petition. The record says, the notice was served on OP No.1 & 2 to 5 were appeared on 17.12.2021, by filling of power of their Advocate. However the WS of the instant OPs was not accepted on statutory ground, as mentioned in order serial No 05, dated 31/01/2022, of the Order Sheet.

                The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that on 21/04/2021, he purchased one laptop of Lenovo Company from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.50, 600.00 and different accessories, vide Invoice no MCGST/21-22/0123 dated 21/04/2021, which carried a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. But the OP No.1 did not hand over the warranty card and user manual to the complainant. One Amiya Ranjan Samal, the brother-in-law of the complainant used to make correspondences with the Ops as the agent / representative on his behalf. The OP No.1 deals with the products of Lenovo Company and OP No.2 to 5 are the manufacturers of Lenovo laptop.

                It is further stated that after few days of purchase, the key board and touch pad of the instant Laptop shown error and sometimes it became defunct  for which, the complainant appraised the OP No.1 about the defects of the laptop, but the OP No.1 instructed him to contact the Lenovo Technical Support team. Thereafter, the complainant keep contact with the Technical support team, who checked the said defective laptop on remote mode reset online, but the problems of the laptop could not be rectified, at the end, as such a ticket dated 10/07/2021, bearing order No.4001609694 was created and the service Engineer of the Ops inspected the aforesaid defective laptop on 21/07/2021 and grievance in respect of the laptop was registered as Case Id No.2002931596 before the Ops. Although the service Engineer changed the key board and touch pad of the laptop, the defects were not removed. But on the contrary said service report was also not been provided to the complainant. Again, a complaint was lodged and the service Engineer checked the aforesaid defective laptop on video conference and remote mode and to that effect a ticket was booked on 24/07/2021 and the deputed service Engineer inspected the said defective laptop on 03/08/2021 and changed the key board and tough pad, but it was of no effect. At that time also no service report was surrender to the complainant or to his agent. The complainant again lodged a complaint before technical support team of the Ops and the said defective laptop was tested and it was suggested by service engineer to reinstall the “Windows Software” of the said laptop. The complainant complied the suggestion of the technical support team, but the self-same defect occurred and the laptop could not open. Finding no other way out, the complainant again ventilated his grievance to OP No.1, who stated to approach the technical support team and then the complainant took their help, but the technical support team did not do the needful, rather, they suggested for taking help of the customer care of the Ops. Consequent upon which, the agent of the complainant gave Mail to the Lenovo customer care unit on 07/08/2021, who advised him on 11/08/2021 to put forth the matter before the technical support team. That on 12/08/2021, the agent of the complainant booked a ticket and the service Engineer of the Ops changed the “Mother Board” attached to the laptop in question on 19/08/2021, but surprisingly the laptop could not reopen. At that time also no service report was supplied to the complainant. Again, on 20/08/2021, the agent of the complainant book a ticket and requested the Technical Support Team. That on 31/08/2021 & 02/09/2021, the agent of the complainant sent Mails to Customer Care Unit for sending of Technical Engineer and ultimately on 09/09/2021, the Technical Engineer of the Ops changed the mother board of the laptop, but the same problem arose and the laptop could not reopen.

                It is the further case of the complainant that the agent of the complainant agitated the problems before the OP No.1 and as per his advice on 13/09/2021 requested the customer care unit through mail to replace the defective laptop set, but no response was received. Similarly, the agent of the complainant also took initiative to get the laptop repaired before the customer care unit. The Technical Support Team of the Ops attended the service calls and provided the copies of their related reports on 20/08/2021 and 23/08/2021 which show that the laptop in question suffers from inherent manufacturing defects. The above latches on the part of the Ops proves itself not only a sheer deficiency in service & defect in the goods supplied but also a gross unfair trade practice. Further, the above acts of the Ops, the complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated and therefore, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the same. Therefore, the complainant, having been rejected by the OPs, for a replacement Laptop & / or refund of considered amount, was constrained to knock out the door of this Commission with the prayer for relief, compensation and expanses, as stated in the complaint petition.Hence, this case.

                That to substantiate the complaint, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder:-

1. Photocopy of tax in voice dated 21/04/2021
2. Copy of Mail dated 07/08/2021 (Complain after two times repair)
3. Copy of Mail dated 11/08/2021 (OP instruction for non-replacement & contact Tech. team)
4. Copy of Mail dated 31/08/2021 (Request for attendance of Service Engineer for installation of supplied Mother Bard)
5. Copy of Mail dated 01/09/2021 (OP requesting for time for attending complainant)
6. Copy of Mail dated 02/09/2021 (Re-Request for attendance of Service Engineer for installation of supplied Mother Bard)
7. Copy of Mail dated 03/09/2021 ( OP’s information about visiting complainant)
8. Copy of Mail dated 13/09/2021 ( Case History & request for replacement of Good)
9. Copy of Mail dated 15/09/2021 (OP information for non-replacement)
10. Copy of Mail dated 30/09/2021 (Request for refund of money against non-replacement)
11. Copy of Mail dated 30/09/2021 (Request for refund of money against non-replacement with information of this CC Case)
12. Copy of Mail dated 02/10/2021 (Request for Refund / Replacement with information of Police Case and complain at National Consumer Help Line)
13. Copy of Mail dated 05/10/2021 (OP’s information of non-replacement)
14. Copy of onsite service call report dated 20/08/2021 (1^st Onsite Service report of OP)
15. Copy of onsite service call report dated 23/08/2021 (2^nd Onsite Service report of OP)
16. Copy of detail history of Complain lodged and OP’s response / report sheet.
17. Copy of E-mail of the OP to Amiya Ranjan, the agent of the complainant (refund Offer)        

                That the Ops 2 to 5 have appeared in this case through their counsels. The OP No.1, appeared by self but did not file his written version whereas OP No.2 to 5 filled their joint written versions. The Written Version of the said OPs 2 to 5, is not accepted as per the order dated 31/01/2022, which is placed in the record. However for an academic point of view the arguments raised therein are discussed in this order.

                The OP No.2 to 5, in their written version, denying the averments made in the complaint petition, stated that the present case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing this case.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the claim as sought for. It is their specific case that the complainant has not produced the copy of invoice before them to show that he has purchased the computer from their authorized dealer and the warranty has not been registered by the complainant himself as stated in the user guide. All the products produced by them are put to strict quality check and tests and are perfect working conditions before being sent for distribution. It is further stated that first call was received on 07/07/2021 wherein “Keyboard Issue” was reported and the authorized Lenovo agent has resolved the problems. That on 10/07/2021, there was also a call lodged wherein part was replaced and the issue was said to be resolved. For the self-same problem, second call log was made on 24/07/2021 and the engineer replaced the parts and issue of Keyboard was said to be resolved. It is also allegedly stated that they informed to perform Windows reinstallation, but the complainant did not agree to do so, rather, he informed that he would visit the dealer to perform operating system reinstallation instead of at service centre. He visited the dealer’s location and called the authorized service representatives of Lenovo, who in turn advise to perform operating system reinstallation and accordingly reinstallation operating system was finished, but the complainant complained that Touchpad was not working and immediately demanded for “machine replacement” and he was advised to contact with customer care team for the purpose. This issue was not occurred due to Lenovo, but due to operating system reinstallation. When the complainant contacted with the OP No.2 to 5, he was advised to contact customer care for replacement and the customer care team explained that machine was not eligible for replacement. That apart, as per work order dated 12/08/2021, Mother Board was sent by the complainant to service centre which was not in working condition. As per work order dated 20/08/2021, the issue of Mother Board was resolved. It is pertinent to mention that OPs upon goodwill approved for machine replacement, but the complainant himself refused for the same. There was no manufacturing defect in the laptop as stated by OPs. The complainant has availed all services under the Warranty Terms & Conditions and the present OPs showing obligations to the warranty repaired the laptop along with replaced the requisite parts of the laptop. Further, the question of replacement of the product is to be granted when the product cannot be repaired and that too when the product is neither repairable nor replaceable, then the question of refund of cost of the product arises. In the present case, the laptop in question has been repaired by replacing the Keyboard and Touchpad, hence, the question of granting refund of cost of the laptop does not warrant consideration. Further, the complainant has not produced a single paper from any expert in the field to show that the laptop in question was manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and thus, it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.       

                To substantiate its case, OP No.2 to 5 have relied upon the following documents-

1. Photocopy of resolution
2. Copy of onsite service call report
3. Copy of onsite service call report
4. Copy of onsite service call report
5. Copy of Lenovo limited warranty

                 In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)      Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 2019?

(ii)     Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?

(iii)    Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?

(iv)    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

(v)     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)    To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?

F I N D I N G S

                 All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the case.

                 That upon meticulous examination of the Complaint Petition, Written Version of OPs along with the documents produced by both the parties in this case, it is found that the complainant had purchased a laptop of Lenovo make from the OP No.1 on 21/04/2021 on payment of Rs.50,600.00 and obtained tax invoice. The above purchased laptop carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase. Here in this case, the OP No.2 to 5 are the manufacturers of Lenovo products and located in different locations. Hence it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec 5(VI) of the C P Act.

                 It is made out that during the warranty period, the impugned laptop showed some defects and on approach, the OP No.1 has stated to contact with Technical Support Team of the OPs 2 to 5, who subsequently could not rectify the defects, despite their several attempts. Thereafter, the complainant time and again has used to ventilate his grievance for repairing / reimbursement of his laptop not only before the OP No.1 but also before the Technical Support Team, Service Engineer, Customer Care Centre of OP No.2 to 5 through Mail dated 07/08/2021, 11/08/2021, 31/08/2021, 01/09/2021, 02/09/2021, 03/09/2021, 13/09/2021, 15/09/2021, 30/09/2021, 02/10/2021 as onsite service call report reveals. That finally on dated 05/10/2021, when the instant complainant was intimated by the Ops no 2 to 5, that the impugned Laptop could not be replaced / reimbursed, allegedly there from the cause of action arose.

                 On the other hand, it is the version of the OP No.2 to 5, that their Technical Support Team, Service Engineer and Customer Care unit have attended the complaints made by the complainant for making of the laptop in question to make the good of the product. But it is evident from the version of the complainant that defects of the laptop in question could not be rectified although after replacement of the major parts thereof. Hence it is determined that the present case filled is within the permitted scope of the CP Act, hence it is maintainable under this Act.

                 It is stated by the contesting OPs that the complainant was advised by them to contact customer care for replacement and the customer care team expressed that machine is not eligible for replacement. Further, these OPs have stated that if the Service Provider determines that it is unable to repair the product, the Service Provider will replace it with one that is at least functionally equivalent and if the Service Provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace the product, the sole remedy under this Limited Warranty is to return the product to the place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of the purchase price. If the above statement of the OPs is taken to be true, then question crept in the mind of the Commission as to why the product of the complainant could not be repaired properly for smooth use of the same even after all efforts from the side of the OPs or by their Technical Support Team, Service Engineer & Customer Care Centre. Moreover, the product in question of the complainant could not be functional after all attempts rendered from the side of the OPs.

                 The Ops have also admitted in Para-8 of their written version that they advised the complainant to contact customer care for replacement. That apart, it is mentioned in the Lenovo Limited Warranty that if the Service Provider determines that it is unable to repair the product, the Service Provider will replace it with one that is at least functionally equivalent and if the Service Provider determines that it is unable to either repair or replace the product, the sole remedy under this Limited Warranty is to return the product to the place of purchase or to Lenovo for a refund of purchase price. If that be so, then what prevented the Service Provider, Technical Support Team, Service Engineer & Customer Care Centre to ventilate the grievances of the complainant regarding non-functioning of the Lenovo product purchased by the complainant after being failure to repair several times the same by the Ops. At the same time, the Ops could not have shown their obligations towards the complainant for making his laptop in running condition or to have suggested for its replacement or to return the product to the place of its purchase or to them. Hence this above described circumstances leads this Commission to arrive at unanimous conclusion that there is gross deficiency on the part of the OPs.

                 For the sake of argument, it is to be believed that the OPs have taken all their best efforts and provided sufficient services towards the complainant, it is not understood under what circumstances, one Asit Kumar Panda, one of the office bearer of Lenovo Data centre made correspondence through E-mail ref. “L/Q3/21-22/029-Sri Abhay Kumar Jena, Sl. No.PF190T0C” dated 10/02/2022 with the agent of the complainant namely Amiya Ranjan Samal to the fact that now Management of Ops offered for refund the amount through DD/ Cheque, so requested for confirm on this. But despite the complainant’s confirmation the Ops have not taken any action towards release of the value of Laptop.

                 Similar is the OP No.1, who deals with the products of Lenovo Company and sold the Lenovo laptop to the complainant, has not at all took any endeavour nor showed any obligation either to make the Lenovo product of the complainant functional or take any initiative with the OPs with regard to the problems of the complainant. From the above, it is clearly made out that the Ops have not provided proper and sufficient services towards the complainant to make his Lenovo product repaired and thereby deficiency in service on their part is attributed. Hence, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the claim of the complainant.

                 So, now upon careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record vis-a-vis submission made by complainant & O.Ps, this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that the OPs have not adjudicated their dispute properly before the Commission. There is no solution arrived by the O.Ps for the loss sustained / suffered by the Complainant incurring out of defect in the product, which legally termed as deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps.

                 Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for.

                 Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

                 Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the Complaint Petition of the instant Consumer bears merit and hence allowed on contest against O.Ps. The O.P No – 1 & 2 to 5, are hereby severally and jointly set liable for their deficiency of service and defect in the said Laptop. The OP No – 2 to 5 are hereby directed to release the Laptop amount of Rs 50, 600/- (Fifty Thousand & Six Hundred Only), along with interest @09.00% P.A., from the date of cause of action arose (05/10/2021) till the date of release of on said sum, within twenty days from receipt of this order. The OP No – 1, is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs 02, 000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), within twenty days from receipt of this order, for not being able to discharge its responsibility as a seller, by coordinating and settling down the dispute between the complainant and the manufacturing company, i.e. OP No 2 to 5.

                 That the OP No -2 to 5, are hereby directed to pay, along with aforesaid, a sum of Rs 50, 000/-, (Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for both mental agony & harassment, sustained by the complainant, together with a sum of Rs 20, 000/- (Twenty Thousand Only), to be paid by the instant OP No -2 to 5 towards litigation cost, to the complainant.

                 That delay in any manner, what so ever, for compliance of this order, for all the OPs, shall carry fine of Rs 500/-, per day, payable by the defaulter OP/s to State Consumer Welfare Fund.

                 In case of failure by any of the O.Ps to comply the order within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same amount from the O.Ps as per prevailing law.

                 Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 15^TH May, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.