Order-20.
Date-28/12/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Praveen Khanna by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one Lenovo Mobile Phone (Model A-536) at a price of Rs. 8,100/- on 14.11.2014 from the showroom of Graphics & Telematics located at 7A, Bentick Street, Kolkata – 700001.But just after purchase of the said mobile phone within two months complainant faced some technical damages.So, the mobile phone was deposited to service center of Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. that is Touch 20H located at Park Street, Ground Floor, P.S.- Park Street, Kolkata – 700016 (Lenovo Service Center) and the official of the said service center received it on 18.02.2015 and it was told that the service will take at least 15 to 20 days for repairing and after that he shall be informed over phone for delivery.
Accordingly complainant went to the service center on 16.03.2015 for inquiry and official of the service center submitted that mobile phone had been rejected by the company and would not be entertained when the complainant asked the reason for rejection, their only answer is that liquid leaked from the battery and it will not be entertained in this case.
Fact remains that as per version of the ops’ the service center, the liquid had been leaked from the battery and it was not caused by the complainant.But the same liquid had damaged ear speaker, audio quality through headphone and the radiation of the said liquid will damage the entire circuits of the said mobile phone and if mobile phone will be in use and all the said damages are technical and the company i.e. Lenovo and Show room i.e. Graphics & Telematics is liable because the said mobile is under warranty and company and the authorized service center is least interested and least bothered about the complaint and simply rejected the complaint though there is warranty.So, in the circumstances complainant has prayed for redressal.
On the other hand the notices of the complaint were served upon the ops and the op Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. appeared by filing powernama and also Graphics & Telematics also appeared by filing power and op Graphics & Telematics by filing a reply submitted that they are the retailer of the Lenovo Mobile Phone, not the manufacturers and they are not the service agent of the company.So, they have their no liability only manufacturer gave warranty.So, manufacturer is liable for that and that written objection was filed by Arindam Kedia, Partner Graphics & Telematics.
On the other hand Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the bill book dated 14.11.2014 between the op no.2 and the complainant, it is clearly mentioned that the discrepancy if any must be brought to notice within 3 days from the date of sale and in the instant case the complainant lodged the complaint on 18.02.2015 and so it can be presumed that the mobile hand set is in working condition and as per the terms and conditions of sale of op no.1, it is clearly stated that the warranty shall not cover any damage due to mishandling of the hand set on the part of the purchaser, but the battery leakage due to overcharging of the handset and there is a liquid damage due to mishandling of the handset.So, ops are not liable to provide free warranty to the handset and the op is willing to do the repairing of the handset if possible against the charges and the entire allegation is vexatious and for which it should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the entire complaint and the written version and also considering the materials on record, it is found that the complainant purchased the said mobile phone manufacturer by Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. on 14.11.2014 from op no.2 on payment of Rs. 8,100/-.Thereafter some technical defect was detected after lapse of 3 months and thereafter it was deposited to the service center of the op i.e. Touch the service center of Lenovo and their service center reported that the battery was damaged for leakage of liquid for which as per warranty clause no service can be provided by the service center op no.1.But manufacturer has also stated that the battery leakage due to over charge of the handset for which the liquid damage of the battery was caused and it was due to mishandling of the handset.
Considering the defence of the op, we find that as per theory of Battery University of Germany after 1997, the battery which are used for any mobile or camera cannot be leaked in view of the fact that a new technic of battery had already been introduced and battery cannot be leaked even if it is over charge because all the battery which are being manufactured as per guideline of Battery University, on that material there is no changes of battery leakage even if it is over charge because it is a dry base and truth is that many companies who are manufacturing mobile or camera etc. that are supplying battery and same is kept in a separate container of the mobile set and when battery is not used for long period and kept inside the box of the mobile or camera and when it is being purchased by the purchaser, it is acceptable for the purchaser to know what is the status of the battery.But after charging the battery is being used when the power and strength of the battery is already lost.
So, after use of the same leakage or damage of the battery is detected for that reason the purchaser cannot be liable on the charge of mishandling of the handset.In the present case it is proved that complainant purchased one Lenovo Mobile Phone Model A-536.But in the said receipt it is not noted that the manufacturing year of the said handset and also manufacturing date of the battery.But the seller must have to note down the manufacturing date and details of the phone including the battery.Moreover at the time of receiving the said mobile phone along with battery by the service center Touch does not note that battery was found damaged because after opening the mobile phone, it shall be found that battery is damaged.But that was not noted that means at the time of receiving the mobile phone along with battery by the service center, no damage was detected in the battery by the service center but only it was noted that battery (Sl. No.4742C23) was received as it was found faulty that means the battery was not working and that Touch the Lenovo Service Centre reported that they shall have to confirm the status of the phone by email.But it is found that HCL Service Ltd. reported that liquid inside the mobile phone and problem internal leakage of liquid which are not supplied from speaker but through headphone the same is very low and their observation is only liquid inside the mobile phone for which it was reported to the customer as per warranty, it has been rejected. But only question is whether the battery was actually sold along with mobile phone in damaged condition or it was damaged subsequently?
Most interesting factor is that about the battery, there is no defence of the ops that the same somehow failed down and the battery was damaged and in this regard we have found that the name of the manufacturing company of battery is not noted and question of misuse does not arise in this case because he did not change the battery and he did not fix the battery.
Moreover from the opinion of the op no.2 regarding battery, we find that it is unscientific having no knowledge about component of chargeable battery.
Truth is that chargeable batteries are dried with dry wave and if the said chargeable phone damaged, then since the time of manufacturing that manufacturer is liable for that defect.
So, considering that fact that chargeable battery which was sold at the time of purchase was placed inside the said mobile phone and invariably it was damaged for which it was leaked and it is nothing but manufacturing defect which was supplied by the op manufacturer and due to said battery leakage, the entire battery set has been damaged.But fact remains that mobile was sold along with such damaged battery and after use of the same by the complainant, it is found that the mobile was not operating and so forthwith he reported the matter to the service center i.e. Touch and Touch received that phone but only they reported that the status shall be reported later and subsequently they reported that the battery was looked, that means the damaged battery was inside the said mobile which was fixed by the seller and that was supplied by the manufacturer and leakage was caused the entire mobile phone damaged.
Fact remains that all over the world market Japanese made of batteries are being sold along with all mobile sets and batteries are kept in a separate packet and inside the packet of mobile phone and at the time of selling the battery is fitted by the selling center inside the mobile.But at the time of selling the mobile, the battery was not tested by the seller and customers always purchased the same being satisfied when it is sold by the authorized dealer of the manufacturer and in fact in this case the technians are very unskilled for which they reported that the battery leakage but what is the cause of battery leakage was not mentioned and in the technical expert report there is no such comment that battery was damaged due to using of any force or fall in water or for using substandard charger etc. only casual observation is that battery was liquid damage.
But in this context it should be mentioned that as per battery producing company, we find that leakage battery can only be found when battery is used continuously and battery’s capacity is lost.So, there is a pre-condition that in case of chargeable battery continuously for hours together a battery can be used for which sometimes should be given for cooling the battery and thereafter again the mobile phone can be used.But in the present case op failed to prove any sort of fault on the part of the complainant.
Another factor is that there is no such testing of the battery by the ops by any battery expert and no such report as submitted by op that those batteries were used continuously for hours together for which it was damaged and leakage was caused.
In this regard we have gathered from the article of Battery University that Lithium-ion Batteries are safe and heat related failures are rare and the battery manufacturers achieve this high reliability by adding three layers of protection and they are (1) limiting the amount of active material to achieve a workable equilibrium of energy density and safety, (2) inclusion of various safety mechanisms within the cell, and (3) the addition of an electronic protection circuit in the battery pack.To achieve maximum run time with high usage of lithium-ion in cell phones, digital cameras and laptops, use cobalt-based lithium-ion.Manganese is the newer of the two chemistries and offers superior thermal stability and it can sustain temperatures of upto 250 degree Centigrade (482 degree Fahrenheit) before becoming unstable.In addition, manganese has a very low internal resistance and can deliver high current on demand and increasingly those batteries are used for power tools and medical devices and hybrid and electric vehicles will be next.
At the same time the said authorities and battery specialist have confirmed that lithium-ion battery is in existence since 1991 and because of the inherent instability of lithium metal, research shifted to a non-metallic lithium battery using lithium-ions and lithium-ions system is safe and today lithium-ion is one of the most successful and safe battery chemistries available.Because long battery runtimes have always to be used by the consumers and battery manufacturers responded by packing more active material into a cell and making the electrodes and separator thinner and this enabled a doubling of energy density since lithium-ion was introduced in 1991.
From their opinion it is found that due to manufacturing defect heat related battery failures are taken very seriously and manufacturers chose a conservative approach and in such a case it is the duty of the manufacturer of the battery to replace the battery and puts the consumer at ease and lawyers at bay.From the said opinion of the battery specialist, it is found that the battery cannot be leaked for handling by the consumers if it is lithium-ion battery.
Another factor is that battery with a faulty protection circuit may function normally but it does not provide protection and a faulty charger may also destroy the battery’s protection circuit and such damage can permanently fuse the solid-state switches in an on position without the user knowing.In fact Battery University monitors the entire complications of the matter regarding complication of battery over the world and after considering the opinion regarding the entire position of the battery and manufacturer’s report by Battery University, we have gathered that the present report by the technicianof the op is baseless, unscientific and they have their no knowledge about component of the battery and the allegation of the op that leakage of battery was caused by the customer is completely false and fabricated because experts of Battery University have confirmed that even a battery falls within the water and after that if it is taken out and rub with dry pieces of clothes, the battery cannot be damaged or leaked.This is the positive side and safety and precaution of the present batteries which are chargeable battery in the market since 1991.
Considering all the above factors, we have gathered that the battery which was supplied along with the Lenovo Mobile Phonehad its manufacturing defect and in this regard very recently heat related battery failures were pointed out in respect of battery manufactured by Lenovo and that were replaced by the companies to their consumers at ease.In this regard Sony Energy, the maker of the lithium-ion cells in question, says that on rare occasions microscopic metal particles may come into contact with other parts of the battery cell, leading to a short circuit within the cell, might be such sort of incident happened in case of present battery and that battery was not tested by any institute by the op or by their any testing house.But unskilled technicians stated about leakage of battery caused by the customer due to mis-handling but such an opinion is not accepted all over the world and also expert of the Battery University.
As per authoritative opinion of Sony Energy Devices the battery relies wholly on the protection devices that are built into the cell and a lithium-ion battery will simply power down when a short circuit occurs.But defect is inherent to the electrochemical cell, such as in contamination caused by microscopic metal particles, probably this anomaly has not been properly detected in the present case for which such a faulty report was filed by the ops unskilled technician who has no knowledge about component of battery.
Considering the numbers of opinion on lithium-ion battery used in the market including the present battery we have gathered that such a battery cannot be damaged due to mis-handling by the consumer and in this regard the return of the battery by Lenovohas confirmed that due to manufacturing defect the present battery was found damaged but not for the so called mis-handling of the complainant as alleged.
In the light of the above observation and relying upon opinion of battery expert we are convinced to hold that opinion of the technician of the op that Battery leakage was due to min-handling of the battery by the customer is completely false, fabricated without any scientific base and on the contrary it is found that the present battery which was with theLenovo Mobile Phone was defective and there was some manufacturing defect for which it was heated and for that reason the entire mobile phone set was damaged but not for the laches on the part of the consumer, the present complainant or for alleged mis-handling of the battery by the complainant.
In the light of the above observation and findings we are convinced to hold that the entire defence of the op is baseless, without any foundation, without any scientific method and against world-wide opinion about the defect of the battery, generally caused due to manufacturing defect and so we are convinced that there was no fault or mis-handling on the part of the complainant in using the battery and practically this set (Lenovo Mobile Phone) was not working within 3 or 4 days from the date of purchase and on the 7 day it was detected by the op’s technician that the battery was found leaked and their technician reported that it was damaged due to mis-handling by the customer that is complainant and it is the principal provision that for faulty reason there was no need to replace the same.But all over the world also articles like battery in respect of such sort of damage if the report of Sony Energy Devices is considered about the defects then such a defect is common in case of manufacturing defect, during a thermal runaway, the high heat of the failing cell can propagate to the next cell, causing it to become thermally unstable as well, and in some cases a chain reaction occurs in which each cell disintegrates at its own timetable and a pack can get destroyed within a few short seconds or linger on for several hours as each cell is consumed on-by-one and to increase safety, packs are fitted with dividers to protect the failing cell from spreading to neighbouring cells. But even then due to presence of electrotable brand of metallic articles such incident takes place in respect of battery.It is also opined by the battery experts that a pack can get destroyed within a few short seconds or linger on for several hours as each cell is consumed on-by-one due to manufacturing defect.
So, we are confirmed that the present damage of the battery was not caused by the complainant but it was completely damaged due to manufacturing defect.Op has not stated that who is manufacturer of the battery, but battery was supplied along with mobile phone, then it is clear that for supplying such defective battery the mobile phone was also damaged for which complainant is not liable but negligent and deficient manner of service and only for supply of a defective batteryand the entire mobile phone set was damaged for supplying damaged battery set by the op for which ops are found liable to return the mobile phone or to refund the entire price amount of the said mobile phone along with battery and in this regard negligence and deficiency and at the same time deceitful manner of trade on the part of the ops is well proved by the complainant due to the authoritative opinion of Battery University regarding present battery support no doubt it was a damaged battery and it had its manufacturing defectwhat caused the entire damage of the Lenovo Mobile Phone.
In the result, complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 3.000/- against op no.1 and same is allowed on contest against op no.2 without any cost.
Ops are hereby directed to return the entire price amount of the said set i.e. Rs. 8,100/- and also a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for harassing the complainant in such a manner and for selling such a defective damaged battery set with the Lenovo Mobile Phone to the complainant and for adopting such deceitful manner of trade and to pay the entire decretal amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost.
Op no.1 shall have to pay litigation cost along with price amount of Rs. 8,100/- and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and i.e. in total Rs. 14,100/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op nos. 1 shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that ops are reluctant to comply this order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986, shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the ops.
