Date of Filing:06.10.2022

Date of Disposal:29.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainants files a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 with a direction to OP to replace the laptop or refund the full amount of purchase Rs.53,967.03p along with interest at 18% p.a. and pay Rs.10,00,000/- for damages, mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- for legal expenses and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant purchased Lenovo Ideapad Slim 3i(2021)  Core i5 11^th Gen Laptop from the  OP company on 05.12.2021 by making payment of Rs.53,967.03/-.  After purchase the same, when the complainant started using the laptop only after 03 days of usage the said laptop stopped working. When the same was complained to the OP, they refused to replace the same by citing reason that liquid damage in the said laptop is not covered under warranty. As such the OP has refused to replace the same due to non-functioning of said laptop. The complainant was made to suffer both mentally and financially as the said laptop was not in a usable condition. When the complainant approached the OP Company for the replacement or for refund of the said amount, the OP has dredged the matter by denying to refund the value of the laptop and they have also denied to replace the said laptop. From the perusal of the contents of the affidavit, it is crystal clear that the transaction between complainant and OP with respect to the purchase of the said laptop is on 05.12.2021 on payment of Rs.53,967.03/-. This transaction, payment and   purchase of the said laptop by the complainant from the OP is not at all in dispute. The only dispute between the parties is that after the purchase of the said laptop only after 03 days of usage the said laptop stopped working, when it was brought to the knowledge of the OP company, they have refused to replace the same by saying that the liquid damage which is found in the said laptop which is not covered under warranty and they have refused either to replace or refund of said amount to the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 12.01.2022, even though receipt of legal notice the OP not refunded the amount or replaced the laptop.  Aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint seeking reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

3. Notice to OP-duly served, represented by counsel, filed written version and affidavit in support of their defence and also filed chief examination affidavit.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant documents in support of his contention.

5.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                :       Affirmative

Point No.2                :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-  On  perusal of the complaint affidavit, it is clear that the complainant purchased Lenovo Ideapad Slim 3i(2021)  Core i5 11^th Gen Laptop from the  OP company on 05.12.2021 by making payment of Rs.53,967.03/-.  After purchase the same, when the complainant started using the laptop only after 03 days of usage the said laptop stopped working. When the same was complained to the OP, they refused to replace the same by citing reason that liquid damage in the said laptop is not covered under warranty. As such the OP has refused to replace the same due to non-functioning of said laptop. The complainant was made to suffer both mentally and financially as the said laptop was not in a usable condition. When the complainant approached the OP Company for the replacement or for refund of the said amount, the OP has dodged the matter by denying to refund the value of the laptop and they have also denied to replace the said laptop. From the perusal of the contents of the affidavit, it is crystal clear that the transaction between complainant and OP with respect to the purchase of the said laptop is on 05.12.2021 on payment of Rs.53,967.03/-. This transaction, payment and   purchase of the said laptop by the complainant from the OP is not at all in disputed. The only dispute between the parties is that after the purchase of the said laptop only after 03 days of usage when the said laptop stopped working, when it was brought to the knowledge of the OP company, they have refused to replace the same by saying that the liquid damage which is found in the said laptop which is not covered under warranty and they have refused either to replace or refund of said amount to the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 12.01.2022, even though on receipt of legal notice the OP has not refunded the amount or replaced the laptop.  Aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint seeking reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

9. The OP filed written version, wherein they denied any deficiency on their part and also they categorically denied the entire complaint allegations as against them, but in the written version statement at Para-2, wherein (it is found in para wise reply) the OP has contended that the complaint of the complainant  is that when the service provider of the OP company verified the said laptop on visiting on 16.12.2021 the engineer who examined the said laptop has found that the mother board of the said laptop was not working. This piece of admission is contradictory in nature. In so far as the earlier contention of the OP is that there is a liquid damage which is found on the said laptop as it is not covered under  warranty and they have refused to settle the claim of the complainant.

10. Further, in so far as the earlier contention of the OP is that there is a liquid damage which is found in the said laptop as it is not covered under warranty. They have refused to settle the claim of the complainant. At one stretch they contend that the laptop found to be damaged and in their version statement at para-2 in the page-3  wherein they have clearly and categorically admitted that the motherboard of the said laptop was not working as per the report of the service engineer to the OP company. These two statements on the condition of the laptop is contradictory in nature and when  there is a contradiction in the statement of the OP company, it goes to show that the OP has tried  to put  up their defence in this case, which is contradictory in nature. When there is a two different contentions on the said fact, it appears that the OP by way of this defence has tried  to escape from the probable liability that may be casted upon the OP by way of any order. When such being the case the contention of the OP cannot be accepted as the OP is not aware, what is the mechanical issue which is found in the said laptop and the technical glitch in the said laptop as it arises well within a warranty period. The complainant is entitled for the relief of refund of the said amount as the value of the laptop as prayed in the complaint. The act and action of the OP company is apparent from the face of the record and it is found to be deficiency in nature. On account of this the OP is held liable to refund the value of the said laptop to the complainant along with other reliefs which is granted in the complaint.

11.  In view of the above discussion, the Point No.1 we answer Partly in Affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is   directed to refund Rs.53,976/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the 12.01.2022   till refund is made  to the complainant.
3. The OP is   further directed to pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges. OP fails to comply the order within 45 days from the date of order, compensation amount and cost of litigation shall  carry interest at 6% p.a. for non-compliance of the order.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 29^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Chinmaya Mishra-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Sri Prasad Reddy- Who being the Authorized  signatory of OP

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*