Date of filing:- 08/12/2015.

Date of Order:-06/04/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2015.

Sri Paresh Kumar Das, aged 28(twenty eight) years, S/o-Madhusudan Das, resident of village and P.o. Katapali, Ps/Tahasil and Dist. Bargarh                                                                                                                                                             ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

-:V e r s u s:-

1. M/S.Mobi Comp, through Proprietor & Owner Sri Haragovind Dash S/o. Premlal Dash, Rindia Complex, In front of Super Market Complex, At/P.o/Dist. Bargarh.

2. M/s. Lenovo (India) Private Limited, E-mail address-www.-Lenovo. Com. Ferns Icon, Level-2 Deddenakund Village Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Bangalore.

3. Lenovo Care Email Adress –www. Lenovo care, Forns Icon Level-2, Deddenakund Village-Marathalli outer ring Road P.o KR Puram, Bangalore -560037.

4. The Proprietor, Orbit Communication & Media of India Sambalpur At- Sabat Tower, N.H.6, Ainthapali, Sambalpur P.s/Dist. Sambalpur.

..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri J.Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri S.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two)

and Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri D.Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.4(four):- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.06/04/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

The gist of the case of the Complainant is that he being persuaded by the Advertisements of the Lenovo IDEA PAD, purchased one set of the Lenovo IDEA PAD FIE 14, vide Model Name 20308 S.L.No-QBO 7645344, P/N IST6A300246 MO-QBO3120606 from the Opposite Party No.1(one) by paying an amount of Rs.41,000/-(Rupees forty one thousand)only and was issued with a receipt of the same against his payment on Dt.29.07.2015. But his case is that on the very next day of his such purchase the touch Plate System of the set was not functioning, and on being informed by him the Opposite Party No.1(one) directed him to contact the Lenovo Care Vide his Contact No-180030005366, And also besides that the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured him to supply him with a hard disk and an anti-virus later on as it was not available with him by that time but to his surprise it is yet not supplied to him.

In furtherance to his case he was informed by the Lenovo Service Care Centre that the expiry date of the warranty period of the same set has already over by then and furthermore surprisingly the Complainant got information from the Opposite Party No.3(three) on his enquiry that the same set was already sold to one Goutam Kumar of Vidyadharpur of Phulbani District, as such to his information the same set sold to him is a second hand one, so he rushed to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.19.09.2015 and complained before him about the same but in vain consequently being helpless sent a pleader notice to the Opposite Party No.1(one) with a copy to all Opposite Parties on Dt.29.09.2015, but none of the Opposite Parties took any steps nor gave him any reply which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, for which the Complainant suffered a lot both physically, mentally, and financially too, hence the case is filed by him claiming to refund his total amount of purchased price along with Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only as compensation towards his mental agony and physical and financial harassment, And has filed some relevant documents in support of his case as follows.

1. Voter Card of the Petitioner LFM 1815000.

2. Money receipt for the amount paid by him to the Opposite Party No.1(one).

3. Warranty Service information Type-80c4, Model-N/A, Service No-QBO7645344.

4. Details of the Lap top-Lenovo Pad.

5. Copy of the pleader Notice including the postal money receipt.

6. Copy of the interim reply by a law associate.

7. Letter in response to interim reply .

Having gone through the complaint, the documents filed by the Complainant and on hearing his counsel, it seemed to be a genuine one hence the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties in response to which all the Opposite Parties except the Opposite Party No.4(four), appeared before the Forum through their Advocate and filed their respective versions independently.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) denied to have any deficiencies in service on his part while admitting the episode of the sale of the set of said Lap top to the Complainant with a ground that he has purchased the said set of Lap top from the Opposite Party No.4(four) who is an authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.2(two), except that he has got no knowledge about the previous sale of the same set to one Goutam Kumar of Phulbani nor he has got any idea as to how again it came to the possession of the Opposite Party No.4(four), and as such has denied to have any liability if any deformity is found with the same, as he has got no scope to know, if the same is a second hand one or a new one. And further he has also denied to have assured any time to the Complainant to give him an anti-virus or the hard disk as it was not available with him by the time of the sale. He has also contended in his version that after getting the Notice from the Complainant about the defect with the set, he has contacted with him over phone and has informed him to put his grievance before the Opposite Party No.4(four) and has handed over him a copy of the Invoice against which he has purchased the set from him and has sold it to the Complainant, hence has denied to have his liability towards the claim of the Complainant. And in support of his case has relied upon the following documents.

(a) Invoice copy No-ORBIT/TI/158/15-16 . (one sheet).

(b) Net down load Copy of Lenovo show room in Sambalpur. (one sheet).

And so far as the averments made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) is concerned it is also an evasive one to the case of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) have denied the case of the Complainant in toto as baseless and false and also have denied to have caused any deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant and unfair trade practice thereto.

The rival contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is specifically denial to the case of the Complainant that as per their official record being the owner of the company Ltd, the particular lap top is registered in the name of one Goutam Kumar of Phulbani and has also disputed about the discrepancy in the complaint with regard to the cost of the same set of Lap top, further it has denied the contention of the Complainant to have ever complained before the service care centre about the same and have rather directly has approached the Forum by filing the case hence there is no scope on their part with regard to the deficiencies in rendering service hence have denied to have their liability with the claim of the Complainant and rather have shifted the same to the Opposite Party No.1(one) contending that the transaction is between the dealer and the Complainant hence it is his responsibility to explain the same to the Complainant and have denied to have any liability on their part with regard to the sale and the defect if any with it, as the Complainant has failed to comply with the interim reply wherein he has been asked to share with the service report as has alleged. And in support of their version have relied on the letter of interim reply Dt. 28.09.2015 and copy of a sale particular of the said set of lap-top in the name of the Goutam Kumar of Phulbani.

Having gone through the complaint, it’s supporting documents and the versions of the Opposite Parties and the documents filed by them and on hearing the respective learned counsels of the Parties, we feel it necessary to examine these points to properly adjudicate the case.

1^st whether there has been commitment of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2^nd whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as has sought for.

While dealing with the 1^st question of determination, it reveals from the materials available from the record that it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased the said Lap-top from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also it has not been disputed by any of the Opposite Parties that the said problem has occurred with the said set, And to our deep verification of the materials available in the record it has come to our observation that there has been a serious commitment of unfair transaction on the part of some of the Opposite Party, and in furtherance to our observation though it is a composite responsibility of all the Opposite Parties to ascertain the truth of such malpractice in their business, but each of them are trying to shift their responsibility on others on different pretext, in addition to that the sole Opposite Party No.4(four) who is the dealer of the Company has not appeared before the Forum in spite of being served with the Notice and as such has been set ex-parte, on whose appearance and reply the case could have been made crystal clear. However from the version and documents filed by the Opposite Parties and on examination of their documents it can be safely deducted that the Opposite Party No.4(four) is the only person who could explain the truth of the entire episode of the sale and the problem thereof, hence we are of the view that though all the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) are equally responsible for the mis-happenings as alleged in the case, but from the documents it can be safely opined that the Opposite Party No.4(four) is sole creator of the unfair trade practice by suppressing the truth from the Opposite Parties and from the Complainant too, As such in our view the Opposite Party No.4(four) is liable to the claim of the Complainant, in addition to that also liable for other penal provision of law, but in that case we want to warn the Opposite Parties more particularly Opposite Parties No. 2(two) & No.3(three) to be careful and vigilant about the transaction made by their dealer on their behalf to safeguard the interest of their consumers in future, And accordingly our views is expressed against the Opposite Party No.4(four).

2^nd with regard to the point of entitlement of the relief as has sought for by the Complainant, as we have already discussed the case in detail and have expressed our opinion against the Opposite Party No.4(four), thus now we are of the consensus view that the Complainant is very much entitled to the claim as he has prayed for, hence it is answered against the Opposite Party No.4(four). Hence order follows.

O R D E R.

Hence the Opposite Party No.4(four) is directed to refund the total amount of money amounting to Rs. 41,000/-(Rupees forty one thousand)only with interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in lieu of compensation for the mental agony & physical, financial harassment undergone by him due to the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party No.4(four), within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and in default of which the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 12 % (twelve percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount. And also the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) are directed to take proper action against the Opposite Party No.4(four) from their end in contravention of their mutual business agreement.

Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum on Dt.06.04.2018, in the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.4(four), and all other Opposite Parties are exonerated from any liability against any claim, and as such the case is disposed off.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                    P r e s i d e n t                                     I agree 

                                                                (Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                                          M e m b e r (w)