IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                    Thursday the 28^h    day of October, 2021

                               Filed on 14.03.2019

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)

2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)

                                                  In

                                      CC/No.316/2020

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                       Opposite parties:-

Sri. Anoop Rekhin                                       1.       M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd

S/o Rajendran                                                       Ferns Icon, Level 2, Outer Ring Rd,

Renitha Bhavan                                                    Doddanekundi,Mahadevapura, 

Kalavankodam.P.O                                               Bengaluru, Karnataka-560037                                                        

Cherthala, Alappuzha                                            Rep. by its Authorised signatory

(Adv.Sri. Anuroop.P)                                            (Adv. Sri. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

                                                                   2.       AARJAY Associates

                                                                             2^nd Floor, Melka Tower,

                                                                             Cheruparambath Road, Kadavanthra

                                                                             Kochi-682020, Rep byits

                                                                              Authorised signatory

                                                                              (Exparte)

                                                                   3.       Lulu Connect, Digital and ,

                                                                             Electronics Megastore, Division of

                                                                             Lulu International Shopping Mall

                                                                             Lulu Shopping mall, Edappally,                                                                             Kochi-24, Rep by its Authorised

                                                                             Signatory

                   (Party in person)

O R D E R

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-

1.      The complainant purchased a Lenovo L340 laptop of serial no. PF2DWBSF as per invoice receipt no.42/123134 dated 14/9/2020 from 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.56,990/-. The same was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party.  The product is covered under warranty for the period of one year and further the opposite parties assured that this product is one of the best products in the market, believing the words of the 3^rd opposite party complainant purchased the said Lenovo laptop.   Two days later from the purchase date it is found that there are  “yellow shades on either sides of the display screen”. Immediately complainant approached to the 3^rd opposite party and they referred the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party saying that they are the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party, hence on 18/9/2020 complainant brought the product to the 2^nd opposite party the said defect was very clearly found by the 2^nd opposite party and they received the product and issued acknowledgment slip SO No.7029438503 dated 18/9/2020.

2.      According to the complainant the opposite parties made tall claims with respect to the quality of the laptop, only with a view to promote the sale and thereby indulge into deceptive trade practices.  The complainant used the said laptop in accordance with the instruction given in the instruction manual.  The opposite parties also assured a warranty that they are fully aware that the service is to be provided in future, but they failed to provide the service, which is required to be provided.  The product contains manufacturing defect, complainant availed such a defective product from the opposite parties.  The acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties caused great mental agony, loss and injury to the complainant, hence on 28/10/2020 complainant issued a lawyers notice to the opposite parties, the opposite parties accepted the notice and 3^rd opposite party made a false reply, but they failed to perform as per notice.  Thus the opposite parties had not complied the demand in the notice.  Therefore the complainant is seeking following reliefs against the opposite parties.

1. To direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Lenovo L340 laptop of serial No. PF2DWBSF with new product in the same description.
2.  To order an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss, harm and mental agony caused due to the defective product, in product liability action and cost of the proceedings.
3.  

The averments and allegations made and contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint are denied;The complainant have not served any invoice of the machine.There is no deficiency in service on part of the 1^st opposite party.Further that it always endeavors to provide excellent after sales service and the authorized service centers are established by this 1^st opposite party with the intent of providing such service and this opposite party always aims at customer satisfaction as its utmost priority. The present complaint is completely baseless, misconceived, untenable and an abuse of the process of law and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

According to this opposite party they are unnecessary party to the proceedings since there is absolutely no specific averment in the complaint about any deficiency of services or unfair trade practice on this opposite party’s part.The complainant had purchased the subject Laptop manufactured by Lenovo from amongst the many products available with this opposite party, after thorough,independent meticulous verification, examination, inspection and scrutiny at his own will, discretion, decision and choice without anyone’s interference or involvement.This opposite party being the authorized dealer has no contract or agreement with the manufacturer with respect to the after sale service of the product.Hence, the complaint is bad for mis joinder of this opposite party who is unnecessary party to the proceeding and hence the complaint has to be dismissed as against this opposite party.

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of laptop  under dispute from the 1^st opposite party?
2. Whether opposite parties 1 and 3 are committed any deficiency in service?
3. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation from opposite parties 1 and 3?
4. Reliefs and cost if any?
9.  
10.  

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Lenovo L340 Laptop from 3^rd opposite party on payment of Rs.56,990/- and the same was manufactured by 1^st opposite party. But the gadget showed defects ie, yellow shades shown on either sides of its display from the 2^nd day of its purchase. Immediately complainant made contact with the 3^rd opposite party, dealer and sought remedy in this regard but they directed the complainant to make contact with 2^nd opposite party, service centre.Thereafter the complainant entrusted the laptop with 2^nd opposite party.The complainant contented that he has been attracted and believed the opposite parties about the services and quality of the product. But the product contains manufacturing defect the complainant availed such a defective product from opposite parties, the acts of opposite parties’ amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony to the complainant.Thereafter complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties vide notice date and claimed replacement of said laptop and claimed compensation under different heads and in response to the said noticefiled reply.

Ext.A1 invoice dated. 14/9/2020 is the receipt of purchase.As per Ext.A1 complainant paid Rs. 56,990/- for the price of Lenovo Laptop under dispute. Ext.A2 is the acknowledgment slip dtd. 18/9/2020 issued by 2^nd opposite party, Ext.A3 series (3 in numbers) are the postal receipts dtd. 28/10/2020,Ext.A4 series (3 in numbers) are the AD cards andExt.A5 is the reply notice dtd. 10/11/2020 by 3^rd opposite party.Ext.C1 is the expert commission report.PW1 is the complainant and PW2 is the expert commissioner in this case RW1 is the concerned person of 3^rd opposite party.

PW2, the commissioner is a network Engineer having 18 years of experience in that field.In chief examination of PW2 he deposed that physical damageCÃm¯nSt¯mfw manufacturing defect  BWv.  “Unkvt¹ kv{Io³  F¶v dnt¸mÀ«v sNbvXn«pffXv FÂ.C.Un. ]m\ens\ Dt±in¨mWv. FÂ.C.Un. ]m\ doss¹kv sNbvXm {]iv\w ]cnlcn¡mw”.   During  re examination he deposed that  “Unkvt¹ kv{Io³ sbtÃm IfÀ I­Xv I¼yq«À Agn¨p t\m¡msX a\Ênem¡mw.”

The 1^st opposite party vehemently opposed the Ext.C1 report since without any proper inspection arrived such a conclusion of manufacturing defect. But it is clear that the defect is prominent without open the laptop as such.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that said display complaint detected in a fresh set.In cross examination PW2 deposed that the only remedy for rectifying the defect is to replace the display.The display is the most important part of the laptop concerned.In the above aspect itself defect is not at all minor in nature.If things don’t work as expected, the warranty may allow the product to be returned, replaced or repaired.Certain actions such as misuse may render a warranty invalid. But not any evidence forth coming to mishandling the laptop by the complainant.In this case doctrin of “res ipsa loquitor” can be applied.The burden shifts to the opposite parties to prove that they were not negligent.In view of the above it is found that the product was not as per specifications offered by the opposite parties 1 and 3.Therefore it is suffered manufacturing defect.

1. Hindustan Motors Ltd. & AnotherVs. Siva Kumar & Another. 2000 (10) SCC 654.

2. Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. LtdVs. Leela Sahu & Another 20^th April 2017 Judgment by NC.

3. Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Anothers 2010(2) CPR 220 (NC).

The findings of the above decisions that the dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect.

14.  
15. hm§p¶ IÌadnt\mSv Fs´¦nepw Un^IvSv h¶m OPbv¡v bmsXmcp D¯chmZn¯zhpw Cà F¶v ]dbmdnÃ. Manufacturing defect  Dff product BsW¶v Ext.C1  sIm­v a\Ênembn.  manufacturing defect Bb product BWv complainant\v hnäsX¶v ]dbp¶p. (Q)  hn¡p¶ kabw D­mbncpt¶m F¶dnbnÃ.(A)”  

Further adds that “Customer ¡v  product details ]dªpsImSp¡pw”. 

Accordingly, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:-

1. 1^st opposite party is liable to replace the disputed laptop with fresh one of the same specification and price with fresh warranty. In that event 2^nd opposite party service centre is directed to hand over the disputed gadget to the 1^st opposite party.

2). Opposite parties 1 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) each to the complainant by way of compensation.

3). 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) each to the complainant as litigation cost.

The above said order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  28^th   day of October, 2021. 

                                                 Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                             Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           Anoop Rekhin (complainant)

PW2                           -           Shibin Sevier(Witness)          

Ext.A1                       -           Invoice Dtd.14/9/2020

Ext.A2                       -           Acknowledgment Slip dtd. 18/9/2020

Ext.A3 series             -           Postal Receipts (3Nos)

Ext.A4series              -           AD cards(3Nos)

Ext.A5                       -           Reply Notice  dtd. 10/11/2020          

Ext.C1                       -           Commission Report               

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                          -           Jaimon Sebastain(Witness)

//True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-