JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one Lenovo Laptop from op no.1.  But after few months from the date of purchase of the laptop it was discovered that the said laptop has some inbuilt or in borne defect.  Thereafter number of problems are being increased day by day in respect of processor key board and it does not boot normally and practically the laptop has a faulty USB port and it sometime corrupts pen drive, memory card or card reader inserted in its USB Port.  At the same time rechargeable battery of the laptop has no power of holding the charge.  After fully charged if it left 24 hours in shut down mode it would not start without the help of power supply.  Moreover laptop has problem in its DVD drive.  Sometimes it even fails to paly brand new DVDs and after facing such problems, complainant called Lenovo Customer Care to given free warranty service when complainant came to learn Vedanta Computer Sales (P) Ltd. op no.1 cheated him at the time of selling the laptop.  On 20.01.2013 first time he called Lenovo customer service their representative and told him that they found no date of his laptop being Sl. No. WB0441081 in their date base and to provide the details the representative suggested the complainant to send the photo copies of cash memo and back sticker of his laptop and the complainant followed the instruction and sent those documents to the customer care center op no.3 and on 19.02.2013 complainant got a reply email from Lenovo customer support team that his laptop does not have any warranty that is why they are unable to give any details relating to warranty and though on 13.03.2012 he bought the laptop from op no.1 with one year manufacturer’s warranty.  So from 13.03.2012 and till 12.03.2013 there was a free service warranty.  After hearing the information as made by Lenovo Customer Care, complainant asked Lenovo why on 19.02.2013 they claimed his laptop was out of warranty and in reply Lenovo informed the complainant that as per their date base his laptop is out of warranty coverage and they did nothing more in this regard but suggested the complainant to visit the website to contract the dealer.

          Subsequently complainant after getting such instruction from the customer care visited Lenovo website and was totally astonished.  He came to learn from website that his laptop Sl. No. WB0441081 was sold from Dubai on 28.12.2011 and the warranty was valid till 27.12.2012 from the date of purchase that is on 28.12.2012 and after observing that, complainant went to Vedanta and they told the complainant not to worry if the company does not give any free service in that case op no.1’s own service center will give service and asked the complainant to keep the laptop to op no.1 and they will repair it at free of cost.  But complainant did not agree because they did not clarify why the complainant did not get manufacturer’s warranty and manufacturer’s service in respect of getting genuine parts etc.  It is proved from the present fact that op sold the second hand or pre-owned laptopthat was first sold from Dubai, three months before complainant purchased it from Vedanta and while searching thorough the documents complainant found a new issue that clearly gives the evidence that such material how the seller-cum-dealer Vedanta cheated and deceived the complainant by selling second hand foreign made article.

          Moreover from the label of the laptop, it is clear that price tag of Rs. 22,000/- inclujsive all taxes.  But Vedanta imposed Rs. 880/- extra as VAT and not onlyh that, the tax calculation in cash memo is full of errors.

          On 06.03.2013 complainant went to Consumer Affairs Deptt. and as per complaint against Vedanta and Lenovo, Consumer Affairs Deptt. arranged a tripartite meeting and Lenovo was absent but Vedanta was not agreeable to refund money for which complainant prayed for justice in this Forum for deceiving the complainant and also for selling second hand laptop to the complainant  and also for harassment and etc.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted the present complaint is not maintainable.  But admitted that he carried on business of selling computer, laptop, hard ware, soft ware peripherals etc. from the authorized agent of branded company and on 06.03.2012 op no.1 purchased 7 Lenovo Laptop B 570E Dual Core in sealed packet from Delhi base agent Pioneer Computronix Pvt. Ltd. for sale to the customer from the shop of op no.1 at 26, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 and one laptop Lenovo B 570E Dual Core was sold with one year warranty by op no.1 itself and price of the good was Rs.21,008/- and it was apprised to the buyer that besides warranty by the seller, the buyer may choose his name registered with the op no.2 for one year warranty fulfilling the condition as guided in a booklet kept inside the packet and after being satisfied with the queries and functioning of the laptop, the complainant purchased the laptop for commercial purpose.

          But op no.1 has denied the allegation that laptop was pre-owned and faulty and further denies that there was no one year free warranty of service and it is specifically mentioned that laptop was purchased direct from the Delhi base agent in a sealed packet and those were produced to the complainant for appraisal and further one year warranty of service was undertaken by the seller itself and no extra tax was imposed on the sale price.

          It is specifically mentioned by the op no.1 that the laptop in question was never placed before the op no.1 since after purchase within its warranty period, no paper from any expert has been produced by the complainant to the op to show that op no.1 sold at any free -.  It is not known to the op no.1 whether complainant registered his laptop with the op no.2 according to the manner advised at the time of purchasing the said goods besides one year warranty of service by the op no.1 and any non-servicing of the op no.2 cannot any way point the op no.1 responsible.  Lastly op no.1 has asserted that he never cheated nor deceived the complainantand the disputed laptop has never been placed for op no.1 for servicing and without any expert opinion it cannot be said that the said laptop has any in borne or inbuilt defect or any manufacturing defect and fact remains complainant did not register the number of laptop with the op no.2 for further one year warranty and it is the fault of the complainant.  So, in the above circumstances, the present complaint should be dismissed as same is completely baseless and without any foundation.

          Whereas Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that as per condition as noted in the said laptop as purchased by the complainant after purchase, complainant failed to register his laptop for obtaining base warranty of one year i.e. from the date of purchase with the registration team of the answering op no.2 and thus on registering under the above said website, the customer will avail of warranty for his product for a period of one year commencing from the date of purchase.  But anyhow after purchase, complainant did not register the same for which as per terms op no.2 or 3 have no fault to give any warranty or any service.  Anyhow the base warranty will not be updated and the manufacturing date with the one year will be reflected in the status of warranty to the machine until it is registered by the purchaser.  But fact remains manufacturing date with one year warranty will be reflected in the status of warranty to the machine.  Hence, there is no question of selling an old machine to the complainant or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering op no.2 and fact remains op no,2 cannot be held liable for responsible for wrong doing or act.

          It is specifically mentioned by the op no.2 and there is neither any defect nor any deficiency on the part of the answering op and as per records of the answering op no.2, no call was lagged with the technician by the complainant.  So, op no.2 cannot be liable for any act of the op no.1.  Further it is submitted by the op no.2 that answering op operates on principal to principal basis with all its dealers.  Hence, the answering op no.2 has neither control nor is responsible for any acts of op no.1 and any wrong is done by the op no.1 it is the liability of the op no.1 for discharging his liability to the customer and same is not binding upon the op no.2.

          Moreover it is specifically submitted that for continuous ten months after purchase, complainant used that laptop continuously for his business purpose.  So, invariably there was no defect but as per term of scientific method, it cannot be treated as inbuilt or in borne defect of the manufacturer item the laptop. Lastly it is stated that op no.2 never received any warranty registration request prior to 13.03.2012 in relation to serial number pertaining to the disputed machine of the complainant and truth is that complainant having registered the laptop as directed in website even after suggestion was given to the complainant which was not followed by the complainant and there is no call logged with the technical support of the answering op before the date 20.01.2013.

          But it is admitted that after lapse of 10 months from the date of purchase of the laptop, complainant brought the warranty on 24.11.2013 that is after long 10 months from the date of purchase.  But the complainant did not follow the procedure of availing warranty of service under warranty and so complainant cannot be held responsible for wrong doing of the complainant and in the above circumstances complaint should be dismissed and in fact complainant is not a consumer under the op nos.2 & 3 and accordingly they have prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

          On in depth study of the complaint including the written versions of the op nos. 1, 2 & 3 and also the materials are produced by the complainant, it is undisputed fact that rather it is admitted fact that complainant purchased this laptop from the op no.1 and it is no doubt Lenovo laptop.  But fact remains it should be produced by the complainant on 13.03.2012 being Laptop Sl. No. WB04491081.  In the said receipt issued by the Vedanta Computer Pvt. Ltd., it is found that there is no note about that laptop whether it is Indian made or foreign made.  But it is admitted by the op no.1 the seller of the Laptop that he purchased from the Delhi based agent and he sold away the same to the complainant.

          In the said produced receipt, it is found that complainant paid Rs. 22,880/-.  In the said receipt, it is specifically mentioned that any products warranty covered by Direct Company direct by the customer and one year warranty was given by the op no.1.  But peculiar factor is that at the time of purchase, op no.1 is seller and did not instruct him to register the same with the present Lenovo op no.2.  Another factor is that it was not disclosed that it waspurchased from outside India.  Fact remains that it was purchased by the agent of Delhi based from Dubai and op no.1 purchased it from the Delhi based agent and thereafter he sold it.  Whatever it may be, it is admitted position that complainant purchased the said laptop.

          Fact remains that there is no liability of the op nos. 2 & 3 to give free service as per warranty card and at the same time is it admitted by the op no.1 that he is bound to give appropriate free service to the complainant in respect of the laptop.  But fact remains that complainant did not give any fair justice from the op no.1 or 2.  But from the defence of the op nos. 1 & 2 we have gathered that their only defence is that as per warranty card it has not been registered of the website of the op no.2.  But it should be taken into account as serious part of fault of the complainant as made by the op nos. 1 & 2.  But we are not in a position to gather such fact in view of the fact, the purchaser is not always aware of the fact whether it is registered or not and otherwise and there is no such instruction in the receipt to give free service from the company and warranty must have to be registered and proof of warranty with website of the op no.2 and no such instruction is also issued by the op no.1 and op no.1 did not register the same just after receiving the money and issuance of the receipt or no note was made in the receipt that customer shall have to do that.  It simply proves that the op no.1 as a seller has no doubt misguided the complainant and he did not discharge his liabilities as a seller to give all such opinion for registering the same with the op nos. 1 & 2 for getting the free warranty service and no doubt that is the negligent manner of service and at the same time it is the deficiency of service for which op no.1 is liable for giving such relief to the complainant.

          Regarding the defence of the op no,2 we find that no doubt it was registered.  But it is the duty of the op no.2 to give such relief when the matter was reported to the op no.2 admitted by the complainant then one year from the date of his purchase and in such a situation it was the duty of the op no.2 to rectify such defect and to register the same in the website of the op no.2 and to give relief to the customer and it is the social responsibility of the manufacturer which was not shown even though complainant appeared and reported to the op no.2 about some defects. But such an act on the part of the op no.2 is found not at all quite justify and legal and in this regard it is clear that op no.2 did not properly render service and it was their duty when they are aware of the fact that this product is the product of Lenovo and when the op no.2 is giving service of all sorts of Lenovo product then what permitted not to give relief to the complainant at that time when complainant appeared with the Lenovo laptop for repairing.  So, we find that liability also on the part of the op no.2 and invariably op no.2 is liable to give such relief.  In this particular case practically op nos. 2 & 3 are trying to discharge their liability only on the ground that the warranty registration has not been registered in the website of op no.2.  But after fulfilling consideration we are confirmed that it is the duty of the seller to register it just after sale or note down to the receipt to that effect in the website of the op it shall be registered by the customer if customer failed to give his name before the seller for registration.  But after considering the sale of goods act and also the liability of the seller we have gathered that it is the duty of the seller to register warranty after sell and it is the bounded duty of the dealer/seller and they cannot any way discharge their liability by telling that the seller has not registered it.  No doubt the op no.1 is the dealer of Lenovo Company.  So his liability is the manufacturers liability when that is the fact then we are confirmed that complainant has been deceived by the op no.1 which is proved.

          But truth is that op no.2 is equally liable in view of the fact then it is found that a poor consumer for earning livelihood he purchased it and he was facing trouble within one year from the date of purchase and in that case op no.2 due to their social responsibility can easily register the same and to give relief but that has not been done.  No doubt it is the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op no.2 also.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for not giving any proper relief to the complainant and has violated the provision of C.P. Act for not giving proper service and apparently deceived the complainant by op no.1 and no doubt in the present case complainant is entitled to get relief when deficiency and negligence and deceitful manner of act on the part of the op no.1 and also negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op no.2 is proved beyond any manner of doubt.  But no doubt the service centeris not liable for that.

          In the result the complaint succeeds against op nos. 1 & 2.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op nos. 1 & 2 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- jointly and severally.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to receive the said Lenovo Laptop from the complainant immediately within 15 days from the complainant and make it fully usable and free from any defect at their own cost and to handover a warranty certificate issued by the op nos. 1 & 2 after registering the same in the website of the op no.2 and such warranty to the complainant for another one year and also op shall have to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment and mental pain and agony and at the same time for loss income of the complainant for last few months.  Op nos. 1 & 2 shall comply the order within one month from the date of this order and complainant shall have to handover the said laptop to the op no.1 at once on proper receipt and op no.1 shall have to receive it and thereafter op nos. 1 & 2 shall take all such steps to make it free from all trouble and defect and make it usable and handover it along with a certificate of website and further registration of the same of warranty for another one year issued by the op no.2.  If op nos. 1 & 2 violate the order of this Forum in that case after expiry of the stipulated period punitive measure shall be taken against them for satisfying the decree and for noncompliance of the order of this Forum by the op nos. 1 & 2 for which further penalty and fine may be imposed