| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No. 90 of 26-5-2021 Decided on : 11-4-2023 Dinesh Kumar Singla aged about 44 years S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla, R/o H.No.358, Street No.1/3-A, Sarabha Nagar, Near A-One Bakery, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Navkar Agencies, HO 4673, Shakti Nagar, Near J&K Bank, Bathinda, 151001 (Pb) Bo, Shop No. 949/6, Laxmi Street, Amarik Singh Road, Bathinda, 151001 (Pb) (Pan No. AAGPN0888D) through its Prop. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon Level 2 Outer Ring Road Doddanekkundi, Mahadevpura, Bangalore, through its MD/DM/ Authorized Authority.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh. Ram Manohar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate, for OP No.1 Opposite party No.2 ex-parte. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:- The complainant Dinesh Kumar Singla (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Navkar Agencies and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased Laptop Lenovo IPG-382EY00L91N/R5 PF2IKEVO from opposite party No.1 on 8.3.2021 for a sum of Rs. 62,500/- bearing Invoice No.202021-NV/12687 and paid the amount through credit card. The opposite parties have given sufficient warrantee of the above said Laptop to the complainant. It is alleged that after one month from the date of purchase the aforesaid laptop developed some snag and stopped working and there is defect in the laptop i.e. the laptop became slow and complainant faced system error. The complainant took laptop to opposite party No.1 and he installed the window again. After that the laptop did not start properly and a message flashed on the screen "critical process died", then complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and on his asking, the complainant left the laptop with opposite party No. 1. When the complainant brought back the laptop, it again did not get started, then the complainant raised the complaint on customer care. On 18.5.2021, the opposite parties sent authorized Engineer namely Vijay Khowal from Lenovo Id No.SY2102146 of Lenovo company, who checked the device and he found and observed that "visit to CU site check and found the unit RAM test failed in ISC and check system found non Lenovo RAM update to fs team checking internally, if approve we will replace the part otherwise reject the case". After that the said Engineer issued job sheet dated 18.5.2021 alongwith customer feed back form bearing service order ID No.4001284175 which has to be filled by the customers as per his satisfaction, but that was not offered by the Engineer to be filled by the complairiant but he himself ticked all the columns and put his signature at the bottom and the signature of complainant Dinesh Kumar Singla were never taken on it. It is further alleged complainant repeatedly requested opposite party No.1 that the Laptop is still under warranty, so either repair it or give the new one or refund the total amount of Rs.62,500/- i.e. price of Laptop, but all in vain. The complainant alleged that due to the aforesaid negligence act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and also financial loss for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant have prayed directions to the opposite parties to change the laptop with new one or refund the amount of Rs.62,500/- alingwith interest @ 18% from the date of purchase till payment and also pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses. Registered notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties, but none appeared its behalf of opposite party No.2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable ; complainant has not come with clean hands as he has not disclosed true facts. It has been pleaded that at the time of purchasing the Laptop, opposite party No.1 clearly stated that there is ONE YEAR WARRANTY given by the opposite party No.2 (Manufacturer of the Laptop thr'o their Service Centre). The complainant never approached opposite party No.1 regarding any defect or complaint. The complaint is false, vexatious qua opposite party No.1. The warranty was given by opposite party No.2 who provided the Services without Charges. On merits, opposite party No.1 denied all the averments of the complainant. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.9.2021 (Ex. C-9) and documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8).. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Jain dated 26-5-2022 (Ex.OP-1/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. To prove this case, the complainant has placed on record Tax Invoice (Ex. C-1) and Onsite Service Call Report (Ex. C-4). A perusal of Onsite Service Call Report (Ex. C-4) shows that in the Explanation column, it is specifically mentioned that “Visit to cu site check and found the unit ram test failed in Isc and check system found none lenovo ram update to fs team checking internally if approve we will replace the part otherwise reject the case' meaning thereby that on checking by Service Engineer of the opposite party No. 2, unit ram test failed and ram update was not of lenovo company. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has argued that said Laptop was carrying warranty of one year and if there is any fault, in that case, warranty is to be provided by manufacturer i.e. opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has remained exparte and although no expert report to his effect that said laptop was having manufacturing defect but when the facts and documents speak itself about the defect and the document Ex. C-4 which is issued by Service Engineer of the opposite parties clearly shows that defetive piece of Laptop was supplied to the complainant. Accordingly, complainant has fully established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to change/replace the Laptop sold to the complainant with new Laptop of same RAM and Model, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the opposite party No. 2 shall refund the price of the Laptop Rs. Rs. 62,500/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. No order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 11-04-2023 ( Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
