District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2011

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

            Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member     

            Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                                 Date of filing: 03/03/2009

CC No.26/2009

Gopan.G.Nair

S/o.Gopinathan Nair

Gayathri Nivas

Pudupariyaram(P.O)

Palakkad.                                                 -                       Complainant;

(By Adv.C.B.Anand)

Vs

1. Sans Infocare Pvt Ltd.

   9/346, Manali Road

   Near J.M.Mahal

   Kalmandapam

   Palakkad

  (Now situate in N.S.Tower

   Near Stadium Bus Stand

   Palakkad).

   (By Adv.R.Ratheesh Kumar)

2. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.

   Reg. Office 2^nd Floor

   Fair Wind No.10/3

   Embassy Golf Link

   Businesspark

   Challagnatta Village

   Varthur, Hobli

   Bangalore 560071.                                 -                        Opposite parties

   (By Adv.Deepu.K.V)

O R D E R

          By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

          The complainant is doing computer aided designing work for his livelihood.  The complainant purchased a Lenovo laptop computer (No.7758449/C2D/2GB/160/DVD) under PMRY scheme from State Bank of India for his self employment.  The computer was purchased from 1^st opposite party on 31/03/2008 for Rs.57,200/-.  The quotation for the computer was placed on 11/02/2007.  The 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the computer.  The complainant stated that the sticker in the key board panel was stuck in the screen and the mark remained in the screen.  It makes the screen rubbish and its function starts slowly.  Also the battery back up was very weak.  The complainant informed these defects to 1^st opposite party and laptop was given for repair on 9/7/08 to Gloria Service Centre through 1^st opposite party.  They took 20 days for repair and changed the LCD panel totally.  But the camera is not working and also take more time for  copying and saving of files.  There is one year warranty for the laptop purchased by the complainant.  At the time of purchase the opposite parties gave offers and made to believe the complainant that the laptop is latest configuration and highly suitable for the complainant’s CAD work.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on several occasions to replace the defective laptop.  But they did not replace the computer.  The complainant sent notice to 2^nd opposite party on 21/8/08 and 27/9/08.  But 2^nd opposite party did not send any reply.  The acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1. Replace the laptop or get back the value of the same with interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.

2. Pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to their deficiency in service.

3. Pay the cost of the proceedings.

          Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  1^st opposite party stated that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  He used the computer for the commercial purpose.  1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the laptop from the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Lenovo computer.  Further 1^st opposite party stated that at the time of purchase of the computer the complainant had thoroughly checked and fully satisfied.  After purchasing the laptop complainant used the computer for commercial purpose and replaced the parts of the laptop without the consent or knowledge of the opposite parties.  The complainant was never entrusted the laptop to Gloria Service Centre through the 1^st opposite party for repair.  Considering the daily usage of the computer and to avoid delay in getting repaired back from authorized service centre, the complainant had entrusted the laptop to the unauthorized service centres and replaced the parts of the computer against the terms of the warranty.  There is no manufacturing defect in the laptop supplied by 1^st opposite party and if at all any manufacturing defect is found the 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer alone is responsible.  The complainant has not issued any notice regarding the complaint of the laptop to 1^st opposite party.

          2^nd opposite party stated that Gloria Service Centre is not an authorized service centre.  So there is violation of warranty and 2^nd opposite party is not at all liable to give any repair to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

          Complainant filed Chief Affidavit and documents.  Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant.  1^st opposite party filed chief affidavit.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party was cross examined.  Commissioner’s  report marked as Ext.C1.  Commissioner was examined.  Laptop was marked as MO1.

          Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

          Issue No.1:

          The complainant stated that he had purchased a Lenovo laptop under PMRY scheme from State Bank of India for his self employment.  Also the complainant submitted that he is doing computer aided designing work for his livelihood.  No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party stated that complainant is not a consumer and he used the laptop for his commercial purpose.  Hence the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer.  No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to show that the complainant used the laptop for commercial purpose.  Mere statement will not consider.  So the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 

          Issue Nos.2 & 3:

          We perused relevant documents on record.  According to Ext.C1 commissioner stated that he noticed sticker shades in the screen of the laptop and it is caused by stickers seen pasted below the key board panel of the laptop.  In the view of commissioner it is a mistake on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Also the commissioner stated that these shades would cause disturbances in viewing the screen.  The complainant stated that he is doing computer aided designing work.  Normally the picture of designing work was not seen clearly due to the sticker shades.  According to Ext.A1 in the quotation clearly shows 1 year warranty.  The complainant stated he has purchased the laptop from 1^st opposite party on 31/3/08 for Rs.57,200/-.  According to Ext.A4 Gloria Service Centre issued service report and mentioned the name Lenovo.  According to Ext.C1 the commissioner has not verified the battery.  Because the battery in the laptop should be drained off at first and then recharged completely and should be operated till the battery wears off.  The 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant has opted the laptop according to his requirement and financial capacity and limit.  At the time of cross examination of 1^st opposite party stated that sticker mark seen in the screen of the laptop.  The name of the Lenovo is mentioned in the Gloria Service Centre report.  At the time of cross examination of complainant stated that the laptop was given to the Gloria Service Centre as per the direction of Lenovo call centre.  Also the complainant has never seeking any relief to the Gloria Service Centre.  Therefore, the Gloria Service Centre is not a necessary party to this complaint.  The opposite parties stated that after purchasing the laptop the complainant used and utilized maximum for commercial purpose and replaced the parts of the laptop without the consent or knowledge of the opposite parties.  No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show the complainant had used the laptop for commercial purpose.  The complainant had sent notice to the 2^nd opposite party on two occasions.  But the 2nd opposite party did not send any reply notice.  At the time of examination of commissioner he stated that sticker shade is seen in the screen and it is a manufacturing defect.  The complainant produced the laptop before the forum and marked as MO1.  Then the sticker shade was seen in the screen of the laptop and it was not fair for the viewers.  As per Ext.A1 the laptop has 1 year warranty.  The complainant noticed the sticker shade at the beginning stage.  Also the complainant stated that the laptop was given for repair on 9/7/08 to Gloria Service Centre through 1^st opposite party.  According to Ext.A2 the complainant had purchased the laptop under PMRY scheme from SBI.  The complainant stated that the battery was not functioning and the laptop was automatically shutting down after 2 hours.  No evidence was produced by the complainant to show the battery was not working in proper.  Then the sticker shade was seen within the warranty period.  Also the complaint filed on 3/3/09 is within the warranty period.  It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service.  The complainant has sent notice to 2^nd opposite party.  But the 2^nd opposite party has not repaired or replaced the laptop.  In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint allowed.  First prayer of the complainant is to replace the laptop or get back the value of laptop with 12% interest p.a.  But the commissioner stated that the sticker shade was seen in the laptop would cause the disturbances in viewing the screen.  Laptop was seen functioning properly in normal speed.  So the 1^st prayer cannot be considered.

          In the result, complaint partly allowed.  We direct both opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for defect in the laptop and for mental agony and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  Order should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. 

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of January, 2011

Smt.Seena.H,

President    

                                        Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,

                                                                                                      Member

                                                                                              Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

    Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Shri.Gopan.G.Nair

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1 – Shri.Sudheer.M.V

CW1 – Shri.N.R.Venkiteswaran.

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Quotation dtd.11/12/07

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of letter No.BR/MISC/PKD/SME/07-08 dt.22/03/08 sent by State Bank of India, Palakkad to 1^st opposite party

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Invoice No.B 1850 dt.31/03/2008

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of service report No.464

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of letter dtd.21/8/08 sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A6 – Photocopy of letter dtd.27/9/08 sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Ext.C1 – Commissioner’s report

MO1 - Laptop

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.