Delhi

West Delhi

CC/19/90

DIVYA SACHDEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVO - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL commission,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI

 

CC No. 90/2019

In re:-

 

Divya Sachdev

Address: D-3, St.Columba's Apartments,

Dwarka Sector-7, Plot no 15

New Delhi-110075                                                                      Complainant

Versus

1. Lenovo Service Centre

Address: G 16,First floor, 89 Hemkunth Chamber,

Nehru Place, New Delhi, Delhi 110019

 

2. Croma

Address: C10, Near Gurudwara Road, Block C

Rajouri Garden New Delhi 110027                                                Opposite Party

 

Coram:                                                                             

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution:04.12.2018

Judgment reserved on:20.09.2022

Date of Decision:27.09.2022

Order by – RICHA JINDAL (Member)

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs u/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

 

1. The complainant had purchased the Lenovo laptop model no. 15 IP330 1RIN 8Gi5 4GBN+ (Serial no SPF1685V6) from OP No.2 for Rs 41,991/- on 4th October2018 .The complainant has been facing a lot of problems works very slowly and the battery drains very fast from the date of purchase. Initially, the complainant called the person from OP No. 2, who had helped him in buying the laptop and requested to assist her in resolving the issue, but he asked the complainant to, contact OP No.1.

 

2. After trying to get in touch multiple times with OP No.1, the complainant’s first complaint was finally heard on 17th October 2018 by Op No.1 but they failed to resolve the issue. Thereafter several complaints have been made on 2^ndNovember 2018, 8" Nov 2018, 13"Nov 2018, and 7 December 2018 respectively. All the conversations were done via email only as the complainant was not entertained on the phone by Ops. Further the complainant was asked to do an online diagnostics test herself no engineer was assigned and after the test results, OP no.1arbitrarily informed the complainant that the laptop is working fine and the complainant should get her system upgraded in case the complainant wished for better performance. This was enclosed as their final statement and no further help was supported after that.

 

3. The complainant again went to OP No. 2 on 25th November 2018, to get the laptop exchanged. The complainant was asked by OP No. 2 to forward all email conversations with Lenovo to Mr Sanjay on Rajouri-c10.sm 044@croma.com, store manager, but still the complainant was not supported. The complainant was asked to rely on OP No. 1 for their services and was told that only OP No.1 can help the complainant with any exchange, and OP No.2 showed their reluctance with any refund or replacement, whereas the laptop was brought from OP No.2 only.

 

4. Later the complainant have been informed that My Kanhaiya, head of Lenovo services, OP No.1, was assigned to deal with the complainant’s case and there were several conference calls wherein the complainant was asked to submit her laptop with OP No.1 and be assured that the problem would be resolved.

 

5. All the pictures and videos of the performance of the laptop have been captured and shared with the Lenovo Company also, Later engineer from OP No.1, who came to visit and Mr Sanjay from OP No.2, but still the diagnostics test were done and no further investigation was done and was not supported at all.

 

6. Initially the complainant had not been assigned an engineer by the OP for a month, after requesting several times to the company. All the engineers who have visited, have witnessed problems with the laptop and yet have not been able to service this till date.

 

7. Further the engineers, who would visit to diagnose the problem with the product, would not provide the complainant with a job sheet number and did not state the actual problem that persist in the laptop in question. The engineer of OP would just write that everything is working fine, despite experiencing problems with the laptop themselves. The complainant was not given a request/complaint number everytime she would complain and would just be told that every complaint would go under one complaint number given in the beginning.

 

8. After some time, Mr Sudipto Ghosh, Mr Mahesh Shetty and Mr Kanhaiya from OP No.1 have been dealing with the complainant’s problem for far, and Mr Sanjay from OP No.2 were aware of the problems about the product.

 

1. The complainant’s laptop was submitted to the service centre on 27th November 2018 and after receiving it back after 5days, there was no change in the performance rather another problem of battery draining very fast started occuring. The complainant again wrote to customer care for OP No. 1 for help, since Mr Kanhaiya had stopped responding and didn't help any further. But it was very shocking that the responses from the OP No.1 have been rude. The complainant’s calls would be put on hold and then disconnected and then Nobodywas available to either call back or to help the complainant in order to resolve the issue. The complainant’s work has suffered all through these 5 months and incurred a lot of trouble and losses. Finding no other option, the complainant had to borrow a laptop from other co-workers to do her work.

 

10. In reference to her complaint 11003997, which was lodgedon 15th January 2019 on the Consumer forum online, OP responded on 4" February 2019 viaemail.

 

11. Thereafter again there was no communication between the complainant and the OP personally rather they have communicated only through the Consumer forum portal stating "I have denied the exceptional services and they cannot refund since the laptop does not come under the criteria." And have closed the case without having any conversation with the complainant. The complainanthas even requested an exchange for the same but has not received a revert till date i.e 13th February 2019.

 

• Thereafter the complainantregistereda complaint vide complaint 1103997 against OP No.1 Lenovo, registered on the National Consumer Forum helpline. Hence this complaint wherein the complainant prayed either for a refund/exchange with another company's laptop.

 

2. Accordingly, on 18/01/2019 after hearing arguments on admission, notice was issued to OPs to appear before Commission on 2/05/2019 but none appeared on behalf of respondents despite service of notice. Even the tracking report of the Notice regarding the delivery of the same has been placed on record on the same day.The matter adjourned for filing a reply if any for 4/06/2019.

 

3.     The Opposite Party was also served through court notice and after that also they didn’t turn up and ignored the court notice. This act of the respondents clearly shows that the respondents are avoiding/disrespecting the court proceedings although they have been duly served.

 

4. In M/s. Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SCC 630, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “That if a registered letter addressed to the person at his residential address does not get served in the normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's conduct. If he is staying away for some time all that he has to do is to leave necessary instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has gone or to deliver them to some other person authorized by him.” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hira Lal &ORs. (1996) 7 SCC 523 has held that notices returned with postal remarks “Not available in the House”, “House Locked” and “Shop Closed", must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents. Accordingly, the respondent proceeded ex parte on 04-06-2019.

 

1. The complainant filed exparte evidence by way of an affidavit on 09-08-2019 testifying to all the facts stated in the complaint along with documents affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has proved the following documents.:

 

1. The copy of the payment receipt of Rs. 41,991/- dtd4.10.2018 issued by OP No.2,
2. Copy of complaint no. 1103997 dated 15.1.2019.
3. Copy of complaint no. 1143291 dated 7.2.2019
4. Copy of the various emailsexchanged between the parties

 

5. Oral arguments were heard on 20/09/2022. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions from the complainant.

 

6. Although the complaints, emails exchanged between the parties, regarding the complaints made by the complainant towards the faulted laptop and the reply given by the OP whereby they duly acknowledged the delay in resolving the grievance of the complainant, have not been duly proved through the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. However, in a decision delivered on July 14, 2020, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Goratyal held that production of a certificate shall not be necessary when the original electronic record is produced. The original electronic record can be adduced directly as evidence if the owner of the computer/tablet/mobile phone steps into the witness box and establishes that the device where the information is first stored is owned/operated by him. Further, Anvar v. Basheer ((2014) 10 SCC 473) held that – “… if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act”. It is deemed that the emails and what’s app chat between the parties are duly admissible and duly proved on record.

 

7. The testimony of CW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The Complainant has proved on record the relevant documents in support of its case.

 

8. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the Complainant or the claim of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is within the time limit since the last chat between the parties took place on 13.02.2019 and the complaint was filed on 04.02.2019.

 

9. The basic question for deciding the complaint is whether the OPs have committed a deficiency in service. The main point for consideration is whether the manufacturing company is only liable for any deficiency in the laptop and OP No.2 as a seller is not liable at all. In our considered opinionOP No, 2 being an agent/dealer of the company, sold the goods and received the amount; issued the bill on the letter of his firm to the complainant, which is undisputed. For the consumer, OP No.2 is equally responsible for the deficiency in service alongwith the manufacturing company. The OP No.2 was an authorized seller of the company and when a complaint about deficiency was made to the seller, the OP No.2 cannot be escaped from the responsibility by stating that for any defect the complainant has to approach the manufacturer on the company's tollfree number complaining about the deficiency of the laptop only. In our opinion, OP no.1 & 2 were jointly and severally responsible under an obligation to remove the defects in the goods either by himself or through the manufacturer. The complainant always has a right to rectify the defects of the goods purchased either by the seller or the manufacturer. As Retailers cannot shirk their liability for selling defective products, Hence both OPs were jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
10. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of Complainant and the documents proved on record, Complainant is entitled to recover Rs 41,990/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety only) from Opposite Party

 

8.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against the OPs jointly and severally and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

[i]    To refund Rs 41,990/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety only) along with interest @ 6% per annumfrom the date of filing complaint till realization i.e. the price of the laptop to the complainant & the subject laptop be returned to the dealer of OP-2.

[ii]    To pay Rs. 7,500/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant and his family members;

[iii]   To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

9. Let the order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.
11. File be consigned to record room. Announced on 27.09.2022.

 

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President