DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 979/2016
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
PAWAN SINGH RANA,
S/o LATE SH. M.S. RANA,
R/o BD-57-B, SHALIMAR BAGH (WEST),
DELHI-110088.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. VIJAY SALES (DELHI),
PITAM PURA BR., HD-2 BLOCK-HD,
PITAM PURA RESIDENTIAL SCHEME,
DELHI.
2. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(SALES & MARKETING OFFICE),
VATLKA BUSINESS PARK, 1st FLOOR,
TOWER-A, NEAR OMEX MALL (MAP),
SOHNA ROAD, SEC.-49,
GURGAON (GURUGRAM)-122018.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 21.09.2016
Date of decision:02.09.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 04.09.2016, the complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop model no. DPR013, 80K600VVIN vide bill no.301-DPR09-16SIF 10
CC No.979/2016 Page 1 of 6
dated 04.09.2016 of Rs.58,501/- from OP-1 and the complainant was assured by OP-1 that the Laptop shall be replaced if any defect is noticed and as many keys of the Laptop was being prompt up with just pressing them, most common is F4 key, therefore, after 5 days of the purchase, the complainant went to OP-1 with the complaint that the complainant was given a defective Laptop. The complainant further alleged that the complainant requested OP-1 to replace the Laptop as it is only 5 days old but they told that now, OP-2 has to do this as OP-1 do not have any right to help the complainant. After such a poor response from OP-1 on 10.09.2016, the complainant contacted service executive of OP-2 and registered complaint vide no. 8007724610 through the representative Mr. Yash and requested for replacement of the defective Laptop who replied that they cannot replace but it can be repaired and the complainant raise strong objection for repair as it was purchased only five days before and no response was received from OP-2. On 16.09.2016, again customer service executive of OP-2 was contacted and requested for replacement of the defective Laptop as many other issues were also developed in the Laptop e.g. Laptop got blank occasionally while using which was very embarrassing during meeting when the son of the complainant was presenting his project, but no response was there from customer service executive of OP-2. Thereafter, sale services of OP-2 was very poor that after elapsing of 6 days, the
CC No.979/2016 Page 2 of 6
complainant did not get any sort of correspondence and the Laptop of OP-2 which the complainant brought through OP-1 required repair within 5 days only due to manufacturing defect and it shows that such defective Laptop was manufactured/sent to retailer by OP-2 and OP-1 intentionally sold out such defective Laptop to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that when no response was received from OP-2, on 17.09.2016, the complainant sent a mail to OP-2 and reply of the mail was received from above mail ID of OP-2 and mentioning that, “this is a system generated e-mail and please do not respond to the e-mail” and the problem of the complainant was still continue and neither OP-1 nor OP-2 reacting on the complaint and now OP-1 started saying that the complainant to approach OP-2, on the other hand, OP-2 is saying that the complainant to approach OP-1 and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to replace the said Laptop with new one or return the cost of the money and to explain the above lapse, a heavy penalty may be imposed upon them for the deficiency in service aswell as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment.
3. OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and has filed their
CC No.979/2016 Page 3 of 6
separate reply. OP-1 in its reply submitted that OP-1 is a dealer and the present case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the dealer has not received any complaint from the complainant and the complainant has been pressurizing OP-1 to replace the product.
4. OP-2 in its reply submitted that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and the case is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that in the Laptop of the complainant there was found a physical damage and the same was due to a “CID” issue i.e. “Customer Induced Damage” and the authorized service center informed the complainant that popping of the keys of the Laptop is considered a physical damage and hence a customer induced damage is not covered under warrantee and the complainant was also informed that the service would be provided on paid/chargeable basis. OP-2 further submitted that there is no deficiency in service and there is no question of replacement of the Laptop or refund of the cost of the Laptop.
5. The complainant filedseparate rejoindersto the reply of both the OPs and denied the contentions of OP-1 & OP-2.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of tax invoice no. 301-DPR09-16SIF 10 dated 04.09.2016 for purchase of Laptop for a total value of Rs.58,501/- issued by OP-1, copy of e-mail communication on 16.09.2016 sent
CC No.979/2016 Page 4 of 6
by the complainant to OP-2 and copy of reply sent by OP-2 to the complainant.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Sourav Ganguly,Head-Services, Excellence, Service & Support ofOP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence. OP-2 has also placed on record copy of CID snap shot and copy of Lenovo Limited Warrantee. OP-2 has also filed written arguments and none of behalf of OP-1 his affidavit in evidence.
8.This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OPs in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the parties. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his new Laptop by improperly using the keys of the Laptop and we do not find any genuineness in the defence of OP-2 and the same is not believed. The multiple problems in the Laptop within few days of its purchase shows that there is some manufacturing and inherent defect in the Laptop. Admittedly the Laptop was within warrantee period and OP-2 has failed to rectify the problem in the Laptop and as such OP-2 has indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. Accordingly, OP-2 being the manufacturer is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under:
CC No.979/2016 Page 5 of 6
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.58,501/- being the price of Laptop on return of the disputed Laptop alongwith accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply with the order within30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 2ndday of September, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.979/2016 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY:-SATYENDRA JEET
