Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/460/2021

Vijay Bhola - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh Rawat

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/460/2021
Date of Institution	:	16/07/2021
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2023

 

Vijay Bhola, s/o Lt. Sh. Mela Ram r/o #196, Sector 11, Gulabgarh Road, Preet Nagar, Street No.6, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali 140507.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore (Registered Office) Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddena Kund Village, Marathhali Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr. Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560037 through its Director(s)/Managing Director/Manager.
2. Sethia Infotech, SCO 26, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh 160020 through its Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mandeep Singh Rawat, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Vijay Bhola, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo Laptop System Model 81EK (hereinafter referred to as “subject laptop”) through OP-2 for ₹85,000/- vide invoice dated 18.5.2020 (Annexure C-1) for the online classes of his son.  After using the subject laptop for some time, its screen/LED stopped functioning and immediately the matter was reported to OP-2, who directed the complainant to get the same repaired from the service centre of OP-1 at Chandigarh. Thereafter the subject laptop was taken to service centre of OP-1 where its LED was replaced and entry to that effect was also reflected in the service call record dated 20.8.2020 (Annexure C-2). After a few months, the battery of the subject laptop stopped functioning and again it was taken to the service centre of OP-1 where the faulty battery was replaced and entry was also reflected in the service call record dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure C-3).  After using the subject laptop for four months, the same stopped functioning due to touch screen/touch pad failure and again the matter was reported to the OPs by sending Whatsapp/email message with the request to replace the laptop or refund the amount paid, but, nothing has been done.  In this manner, as the subject laptop was noticed with defects from the very beginning, there was inherent manufacturing in the same and by not replacing the same, despite of repeated requests of complainant, OPs have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 27.4.2021 (Annexure C-4) to the OPs and the same was replied on 13.5.2021 (Annexure C-6) by intimating the complainant that the complaint has been forwarded to the relevant department for verification.  The relevant documents were also provided by the complainant to OP-1 through email dated 27.5.2021 (Annexure C-7), but, even after that OPs have not refunded the amount as requested by the complainant and the said act of the OPs has caused financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment to the complainant. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and also on the ground that the present consumer complaint is gross abuse of process of law as the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands.  However, it is admitted that the subject laptop was purchased by the complainant from the OP and whenever the complainant had approached the OP with the complaint of any defect in the same, the said defect was removed by the OP within the warranty period without charging anything from him.  However, it is denied that the complainant ever had brought to the notice of OP that there was any defect in the screen/touch pad of the subject laptop.  It is further alleged that even the complainant had not led any expert evidence to prove that the subject laptop was having any such type of defect, hence there is no question of any inherent manufacturing defect in the subject laptop.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. It is further alleged that during the warranty period, all the problems brought to the notice of the OP were solved by them as per terms and conditions of warranty.  It is further alleged that the complainant had issued wrong legal notice to the OPs.  However, it is alleged that the said notice was properly replied by the answering OP. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-2 was properly served and when OP-2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.5.2022.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject laptop from OP-1 through its authorized dealer (OP-2) for an amount of ₹85,000/-, including GST, which fact is also evident from the invoice dated 18.5.2020 (Annexure C-1) and further that the subject laptop was repaired by OPs within the warranty period by replacing the LED vide service call report dated 20.8.2020 (Annexure C-2) as well as the battery of the same was replaced vide service call report dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure C-3), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant had reported the defect qua the functioning of the touch screen/touch pad failure in the month of April 2021 on the ground that there was inherent manufacturing defect and the same was not repaired by the OPs and despite of request of the complainant OPs had not refunded the amount as requested and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant himself has not approached the OPs with the alleged complaint in the month of April 2021 qua the functioning of touch screen/touch pad failure and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs. 
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the alleged defect found in the subject laptop in the month of April 2021 i.e. non-functioning of the touch screen/touch pad and that the subject laptop was having inherent manufacturing defect, as is the case of the complainant, and in order to prove the aforesaid defect, the onus heavily lies upon the complainant.
   3. As per the case of complainant, immediately after noticing the aforesaid defect in the touch screen/ touch pad, he had informed the OPs by sending messages through Whatsapp and email and requested the OPs to replace the laptop or refund the price thereof, as has also been alleged in para 5 of the consumer complaint, and these allegations made by the complainant have been specifically denied by OP-1 in its written version.  However, in order to prove this fact, complainant has failed to produce on record the messages sent by him to the OPs through Whatsapp or email, complaining about non-functioning of the touch screen/touch pad of the subject laptop.  Thus, it is clear that the most material evidence available with the complainant has been withheld and has not been produced by him on the case file and adverse inference has to be drawn against the entire case of the complainant that the subject laptop started problem in its touch screen/ touch pad in the month of April 2021 i.e. after four months of the replacement of the battery by OPs on 23.12.2020.
   4. The other evidence which the complainant could have led in order to prove the alleged defect was expert evidence, which he has failed to lead in the present consumer complaint, as had there been any defect in the touch screen/touch pad, complainant could have got the same checked from some expert and have proved his report on the complaint file, which has not been done by him.  Not only this, even the complainant himself had not taken the subject laptop with the service centre of the OPs for the removal of the alleged defect, knowing this fact that the subject laptop was earlier repaired by the service centre of the OPs whenever he had approached them with such problem. In this manner, when the complainant has failed to bring on record any iota of evidence in order to prove that in the month of April 2021 any defect in the touch screen/touch pad was noticed, he has failed to prove on record that there was any inherent manufacturing defect in the subject laptop.  By simply approaching the OPs for minor defects i.e. with the LED or the replacement of battery and also when the said defects were removed by the OPs immediately when the complainant had approached them, same cannot be said to be inherent manufacturing defects in the subject laptop. 
   5. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the subject laptop or there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and that he is entitled for the refund of the price of the subject laptop or its replacement, especially when he has failed to prove the cause of action set up by him in the consumer complaint. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/05/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member