DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day of April 2021

Present: Sri.C.T.Sabu(President I/c)  

              : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                        Date of Filing: 08/07/2020

CC /68/2020

Saly.F,                                                                                                  -           Complainant

W/o.C.V.Rajmohan,

Chiramel House,

Krishna Road, Piriyari Post,

Palakkad – 678 004.

(By Adv.U.Suresh)                                          

V/s

1. MyG                                                                                                                

    Bypass Road, Door No. 24/986,

    5 Stadium Bypass Road,

    Kunnathurmedu Post,

    Palakkad - 678 001.

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.,                                                                                              -           Opposite parties

    Ferns Icom - Level-2,

    Doddenakund Village,

    Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,     

    Marathahalli Post, K.A. Puram Post, 

    Hobli, Bangalore - 560 039.

   (By Advs.K.Krishnakumar & P.S.Sinimol)

O R D E R

By Smt.Vidya.A, Member

Brief facts of the complaint  

            The complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop 4GB/TBHD Grey colour worth Rs.30,600/- from the 1^st opposite party from its branch at Kunnarthumedu.  The 1^st opposite party introduced the complainant to the representative of the Bajaj Finance operating from their show room itself.  Bajaj Finance offered to give loan to the complainant and convinced him that he need not pay all the amount as lump sum and can pay the entire amount in 09 installments with down payment of Rs.11,600/-.  The 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to avail the loan and she availed the loan facility and remitted the down payment of Rs.11,600/-.  Within a week of its purchase, the complainant found that the laptop battery charge was draining out very fast and it could not retain charge and was draining out even when switched off.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and showed the defect in the laptop to them.  On being convinced of the defect, the 1^st opposite party took back the laptop and told that since the defect had been brought into notice at early stage itself, the product can be sent back to the manufacturer ie. to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant handed over the laptop to the 1^st opposite party on 30/05/2020.  The complainant is working as a teacher at St.Raphael’s Cathedral School, Palakkad and her two children are studying in the same school. The complainant purchased the laptop for taking online classes and for attending the online classes for her children.  The 1^st opposite party had neither replaced nor repaired the laptop.  So during the pandemic period, the complainant and her children were not able to use the laptop for which it was actually purchased.  The 1^st opposite party after taking the laptop from the complainant, made her run after this enquiring about the laptop.  The product had a manufacturing defect and the 1^st opposite party who sold the defective product to the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the product are liable for the hardships caused to the complainant.  After selling a defective product, the 1^st opposite party made the complainant run several times to their showroom and they had not responded till date regarding the replacement of the laptop.

            The 1^st opposite party responded negligently to the phone calls and queries which made the complainant to go several times to their showroom during this difficult situation of pandemic.  1^st opposite party is telling the lame excuse that the 2^nd opposite party had not responded.  The product is brand new from the showroom and it is covered by warranty.   The defect in the product is a manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are liable to replace it with a brand new product.  Now the defective product is with the 1^st opposite party who is silent on replacement or compensation.  The complainant had suffered a financial loss of Rs.30,600/- for the purchase of the laptop and had undergone mental pain and agony when it became  defective  within a week. The complainant suffered great loss and injury due to the deficiency in service of the part of the opposite parties.

            Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to replace the laptop or in the alternative to pay Rs.30,600/- being the value of the same, and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered, Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings and Rs.10,000/- for the monetary loss suffered by the complainant in terms of interest to the Bajaj Agency and such other relief as the complainant prays.

Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties.  Notice was served to both opposite parties and 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed their version.  The complainant’s counsel submitted that 2^nd opposite party is ready for settling the matter and it is posted for reporting settlement.  Eventhough several postings were given, the matter was not settled and after that 2^nd opposite party’s counsel filed ‘no instruction’ memo from their side.  2^nd opposite party’s name called, absent and set ex-parte.  The complainant filed chief affidavit.  After that 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version along with application to condone the delay caused due to the pandemic situation and it was allowed.

Main contention raised by 1^st opposite party  in their version

The 1^st opposite party admits that the complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop from their showroom on 22/05/2020.  The allegation in the complaint that the 1^st opposite party introduced the complainant to the representative of Bajaj Finance and Bajaj convinced the complainant that she need not pay the amount in lump sum and can pay the entire amount in 09 installments with down payment of Rs.11,600/- and the 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to avail the loan etc. are false and cooked up story by the complainant only for the purpose of filing this complaint.  The Bajaj Finance is an independent institution giving financial assistance to various customers on their request.  This opposite party is a dealer of various international brands of laptops and mobile handsets.  The hire purchase loan is availed by the complainant only by her wish and will and there is no extra benefit to the 1^st opposite party because of the hire purchase scheme.  The 1^st opposite party never advised the complainant to avail the loan.

The allegations in the complaint that the laptop which she purchased could not retain charge and it is draining out even when switched off and the defect when noticed by the          1^st opposite party they took back the laptop and told that since the defect has been brought to notice at very early stage it can be send back to the manufacturer ie. to the 2^nd opposite party are not correct and hence denied.

The 1^st opposite party never admitted any manufacturing defect in the laptop at any stage of its purchase.  When the complainant bought the laptop, the 1^st opposite party checked the functioning of the same and satisfied that there is no defect to the battery charging function of the laptop.  But this was not acceptable to the complainant and so the 1^st opposite party advised her to send the laptop to the authorized service centre of Lenovo Laptop, Thrissur for further clarification.  Accordingly the 1^st opposite party send the Laptop to the authorized service centre and after inspecting the laptop they informed that there is no defect in the laptop and it was intimated to the complainant and they directly contacted the service centre and convinced themselves that it is not having any manufacturing defect.

The allegation in the complaint that on 30/05/2020 the laptop was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for replacement is not true.  The 1^st opposite party never undertook or agreed to replace the Laptop.  There is no allegation of manufacturing defect of the Laptop in the complaint but the only defect pointed out by the complainant is that the charging indication not fully persist any time.  The reason for this may be that the complainant had not fully charged the Laptop and discharged it by using the laptop.  Only after fully charging and discharging the indication will show full charge.  This was informed to the complainant by the service centre and they showed her how to use a brand new laptop.  The 1^st opposite party never sold a defective Laptop to the complainant; the complainant purchased this particular brand of laptop after verifying and being satisfied herself.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and they did not do any unfair trade practice.  The complainant has not suffered any damages by using the laptop.  The claim for compensation of the complainant for mental agony, cost and interest are unsustainable and without any basis.  The intention of the complainant is only money making.

The authorized service centre of Lenovo at Thrissur is a necessary party in this case.  The reason for not impleading them is that, if they come to the picture, the real facts will be disclosed.  They have to be impleaded as supplementary 3^rd opposite party, otherwise the complaint will be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer of Lenovo brand Laptop and they never insisted the complainant for purchasing a particular brand and she purchased it according to her wish.  She purchased the Laptop on the warranty given by the manufacturer.  The authorized service centre deputed by the manufacturer is ready to give free services for a period of one year on the basis of warranty conditions.

The 1^st opposite party pleaded to uphold their version and to dismiss the complaint with cost.

Main contention of 2^nd opposite party  in their version

  The 2^nd opposite party’s contention against the allegation of manufacturing defect of the product is that every single product imported and sold by it in India is subjected to very stringent quality checks in accordance with highest recognized quality standards before the same is brought for sale in the market.  As per the records of customer care of 2^nd opposite party, there is no call logged in the Customer Relationship Management of the opposite party on 30^th May 2020 as stated by the complainant.  As per the information received from their authorized service centre, the complainant visited them on 18^th June 2020 with the Service Order SO# 7009257091.  The Engineer inspected the laptop and found that there is no issue in the laptop and the same was informed to the complainant.  Further authorized service centre of 2^nd opposite party opposes to provide the replacement as there was no issue in the laptop and it was good and in working condition.   Hence the allegation raised by the complainant are baseless and they have been made with the sole intention of harassing and gaining undue advantage from the 2^nd opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.  They always provide excellent after sale service and authorized service centres are established with the intent of providing such service and they aim customer satisfaction as its utmost priority.  They admit that the laptop is still in warranty period.  It has no issues and is in working condition; but the complainant is not collecting it from the service centre.

The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to provide any services, refund or the replacement of the laptop.  The claims are made by the complainant with the intent to gain monetary advantage.  The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and it has to be dismissed as baseless.

The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked from her side.  The 1^st opposite party filed version and after that there was no representation from their part.  No affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and no evidence adduced.  2^nd opposite party also filed their version but no affidavit was filed.  2^nd opposite party’s counsel filed ‘No instruction memo’ from their side and so the evidence of opposite parties closed.

Main issues arising for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on their part?
2. If so, what is the relief as to cost/Compensation?

Issues 1&2

Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents produced from their part.

Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 22/05/2020 issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant for the purchase of ‘Lenovo Laptop’ for an amount of Rs.30,600/-.

According to the complainant, within a week of its purchase, she found that the laptop battery charge was draining out very fast and could not retain charge and was even draining out when switched off.  So she approached the 1^st opposite party and the defect was shown to them.  On noticing the defect, they took back the laptop and assured to send it to the               2^nd opposite party, manufacturer for replacement.

The 1^st opposite party in their version had denied this contention of the complainant.  According to them, after checking the functioning of the laptop, they found no defect in the battery charging function.  They informed this to the complainant and as it was not acceptable to her, the 1^st opposite party send the laptop to the authorized service centre of Lenovo at Thrissur for further clarification.  They also affirmed that there is no defect in the laptop and the complainant and her husband themselves were convinced of this fact. 

They also denied the complainant’s contention that on 30/05/2020, the laptop was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for replacement.  But in Ext.A2, there is an endorsement to the effect that “the product collected for service on 30^th May”.  As per 2^nd opposite party’s version the laptop is not having any issues and is working fine and in good condition.  But the complainant is not collecting the laptop from the service centre.

But opposite parties 1 and 2 did not file affidavit and adduce evidence to prove their contention.  They did not take any steps to cross examine the complainant and to bring out the veracity of their contention.  So the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.

Since the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence, the complainant’s contention regarding the defect in the laptop stands unchallenged.

When a newly purchased product became defective within a week of its purchase, it is definitely because of the manufacturing defect for which the opposite party 1 and 2 are liable.  The 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the product and the 1^st opposite party being its retailer are liable for replacement of the product or refunding of the amount.

The complainant would have definitely undergone mental agony when the newly purchased laptop became defective within a week of its purchase.  Further she purchased it for taking online classes and for attending online classes for children.  As it became defective within a short period, it did not serve the purpose for which it was purchased.  The 1^st opposite party with whom the product was entrusted, did not respond properly and provided the necessary service.  The 2^nd opposite party eventhough submitted that they are ready for settling the matter, they did not settle the matter.  So there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant suffered financial loss as the newly purchased product became defective within a week.

Eventhough the complainant had claimed the interest paid to the financier, she did not produce any supporting document to substantiate the validity of the amount claimed.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. 

We direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Laptop with a new one of the same brand and specification to the complainant’s satisfaction within one month from the date of receipt of this order or refund the amount of Rs.30,600/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and Six hundred only) the price of the Laptop.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only)  as compensation for the mental agony suffered and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. 

The order shall be executed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due to them from the date of this order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of April 2021.      

                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                              C.T.Sabu

                         (President I/c)

                                                                                         Sd/-           

                                                                                                  Vidya.A

                             Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Invoice issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant dated 22/5/2020.

Ext.A2 – Copy of the invoice with endorsement to the effect that “the product collected for

  service on 30^th May”. 

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party

NIL

Witness examined on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

NIL

Cost :   Rs.5,000/-