DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 169/2022

ORDER

1. By this order the Commission would dispose of the interim application for Ex-parte injunction filed by the complainant for restraining the OP from publishing and circulating the misleading advertisements in the interest of justice and for protection of consumer rights.
2. Before coming to the facts of the interim application seeking injunction, firstly the contents of the main complaint are being referred to, so as to appreciate the entire controversy.
3. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of CP Act alleging deficiency of service in not extending the warranty in buying the Lenevo Desktop PC as given by the OP.  It is submitted that the complainant purchased the said PC from the online store of OP and also purchased extended warranty for 3 years which was upto the year 2023.  Year of purchase is not mentioned but as per bill it was purchased on 07.11.2020.  He raised the request i.e. CRM001133300000681 (It is not specified as to what was the complaint) and on reply by the customer support of OP, it was conveyed that complainant’s warranty has expired.  He then raised and registered his complaint with National Consumer Helpline but the issue was not resolved and it is further stated that denying a purchased extended warranty by the OP is gross attempt of unnecessary agonizing and harassing the complaint and it is ultimately prayed by the complaint that OP be directed to restore the extended warranty, so denied.
4. The matter was pending and was fixed for 06.02.2023 but meanwhile complainant filed the present application seeking Ex-parte injunction and as such notice was issued to the OP and date was changed to 12.12.2022 and OP was ordered to be served which stands served but none appeared on behalf of OP and matter was fixed for 23.01.2023.  However, file was again taken up on the emails sent by complainant for early hearing claiming it to be a matter of urgent nature and as such file was again taken up on 19.12.2022 and arguments on interim application were heard. 
5. The brief facts as stated by the complainant in application for Ex-parte injunction is that he purchased the product from OP along with extended warranty on certain attachments/items with a desktop and in his case it was the problem in mouse as referred to be an external device and it was conveyed by the OP to the complainant that since the warranty/extended warranty does not cover external device for which a separate extended warranty was to be taken the extended warranty for the purpose of repairing the mouse i.e. external device was denied.  It is further stated that OP through electronic mode served the written statement to the complainant and clause 6.2 has been reproduced as follows:

“A warranty extension The duration of any extended warranty for your product will be for the period you purchase, commencing on the start date of the original base warranty.  Any extension must be purchased during the product’s original base warranty (for example if the original warranty is 1 year and Warranty extension is purchased for 3 years then the parts consumed through use of the product for example stylus digitizer pen and batteries are not covered by this Service Warranty Period for all Lenovo batteries, stylus and digitizer pens are limited to 12 months unless otherwise specified.  Unless you purchase a separate battery Warranty Extension, the warranty period for your battery will expire at the end of the period specified in your Lenovo Limited Warranty.”

6. Thereafter various facts have been written which do not pertain to the complainant individually, rather para 5 to 9 only covers w.r.t. agony suffered/ to be suffered by the ‘consumers as a class’ by stating that most consumer do not even bother and pay for a service that should have otherwise been covered under warranty/extended warranty and most consumers are unaware of such rights or the fact that company is wrongly interpreting the clause and is unjustly enriching itself at the cost of vulnerable class and since it is deliberate misrepresentation and suppressive terms and conditions misleading advertisements which amounts to abuse of discretion by the OP and which also amounts to unfair trade practice while selling extended/original warranty by the OP and it amounts to unfair trade practice and as such the OPs be prohibited and restrained from using advertising such dubious terms with immediate effect.  It is also stated that Central Consumer Protection Authority has the power to issue and intervene in any proceedings if any issue involves ‘consumer as a class’ and even order appropriate investigation but since the complaint is pending before this Commission, application is being filed here as it is still unclear whether the complaint can be filed before the Central Consumer Protection Authority when a matter is pending before the consumer commission. 
7. The Commission has heard the arguments at length and prima facie the commission is of the opinion that the complaint as drafted is quite vague but what can be understood is that the complainant purchased the desktop from the OP with extended warranty for three years and after the expiry of one year the mouse got some problem and when complainant approached the OP to rectify the same claiming that he has purchased extended warranty his request was declined by stating that extended warranty does not cover the external device/mouse and complainant accordingly filed the present complaint with a prayer that the extended warranty so purchased by him be directed to be honoured by the OP as the same is malpractice, unfair trade practice and amounts to deficiency in service. 
8. The relief sought by the complainant by way of Ex-parte injunction is altogether different from the main relief, as in the Ex-parte injunction, the complainant wants to invoke the provision of Chapter 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 which deals with the powers of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) as the same relates to ‘consumers at a class’ and not as an individual.  Although, it is contended by the complainant that he is not clear whether such injunction application be filed before this Commission or before CCPA yet he has filed the same before this Commission as matter is pending before this Commission. 
9. The Commission is of the opinion that irrespective of the facts or no clarity on the issue, this Commission does not have the power to grant any injunction w.r.t. the cases of ‘consumers as a class’ particularly when the original complaint before this commission is only w.r.t. his individual grievance.  Therefore, application for Ex-parte injunction as prayed for by the complainant is dismissed. 
10. Put up the matter on 06.02.2023 the date already fixed. 

Announced on 06.01.2023