DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.504 of 13-08-2014

Decided on 14-08-2015

King Kaushal aged about 23 years S/o Jiwan Singla R/o # 20315, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Street No.14, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferms I Con, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marath Halli, Outer Ring Road, K.R Puram Hjobli, Banglore-560037, India, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s GSK Enterprises (Green Dust) H.No.19093, Main Road, Gali No.10, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Proprietor.

3.Lenovo Service Centre, Near Bus Stand, Kocher Market, PRS Complex, Room No.103, Ludhiana-141005, through its Proprietor/Manager. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Jiwan Kumar, A.R of complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Tek Singh Mann, counsel for opposite party No.2.

Opposite party No.3 already deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant King Kaushal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one laptop Lenovo odel G580 RLC No.59351467 WB 10403851 for Rs.22,000/- vide bill/invoice No.0013 from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1 on 25.8.2013 with one year guarantee

It is alleged that soon after purchase, the laptop started giving problems within the warranty period . On 21.6.2014, the motherboard of laptop was changed due to manufacturing defect and on 26.7.2014, its hard disk was replaced with new one by opposite party No.3 at Bathinda, but laptop again started giving problem and used to stop while working. An engineer of opposite party No.3 checked the laptop at Bathinda and disclosed that the defect cannot be removed as there is some manufacturing defect in it. The laptop has some manufacturing defect as it again started giving problem.

It is further alleged that the laptop was beyond repair and suffered inherent manufacturing defect and opposite party No.2 having declared so and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 refused to replace it with new one. The complainant has suffered a lot in his profession and claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides refund of the price of laptop i.e. Rs.22,000/-.

3. Opposite party No.3 was deleted on the statement suffered by A.R of the complainant on dated 22.10.2014 vide order dated 22.10.2014 from the array of the opposite parties.

4. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that M/s Lenovo India Private Limited having its registered office at Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli, Bangalore, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Opposite party No.1 denied each and every statement, averment, allegation or contention made by the inconsistent with or contradictory to whatever are stated by it.

5. In further written version, opposite party No.1 raised the legal objections that the contents of this complaint are mis-conceived, misleading and after thought. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause-of-action to file this complaint. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The intricate question of law and facts are involved in this case. Parties have to lead its evidence by examining the witnesses and said witnesses are to be cross-examined by the other party. The procedure under the 'Act' is summary and complainant, if so advised, may file civil suit seeking the alleged relief. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any deficiency in service has been alleged. As such, the complainant is not a consumer under 'Act' and complaint is liable to be dismissed. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The complainant is estopped from filing this complaint by his own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed to cause undue harassment to opposite party No.1. As such, the complainant is liable to pay penalty as provided under the 'Act'.

On merits also, opposite party No.1 controverted all the averments. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one laptop of opposite party No.1 after getting entire information about product in vernacular language and also going through entire terms and conditions of warranty provided by opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 removed the defect from the product as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Opposite party No.1 received a notice from the counsel of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 sent a detailed interim reply on 9.6.2014 and thereafter sent final reply on 3.7.2014 and also sent the satisfaction letter issued by the complainant after getting the services from opposite party No.1 and further conveyed that the problem is related with software, which is not covered under the warranty provided by it. Opposite party No.1 has also reproduced relevant terms and conditions in this regard.

After controverting all other averments, opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. Opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, opposite party No.2 has raised legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action against it. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. Opposite party No.2 sold the laptop to the complainant against a valid bill and liability of any manufacturing defect or repair of the laptop or replacement of its any part is of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 only. The intricate question of law and facts are involved in this case, which cannot be decided through summary proceedings by this Forum and complainant, if so advised, may approach the Civil Court. The complainant against opposite party No.2 is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed to cause undue harassment and botheration to opposite party No.2. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed with penalty of Rs.5000/-

On merits also, opposite party No.2 has controverted the material averments and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

8. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of bill, Ex.C1; his own affidavit, Ex.C2 and copies of job sheets, Ex.C3 to Ex.C5.

9. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence copy of warranty, Ex.OP1/1; copies of letters, Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3; copy of service report, Ex.OP1/4; copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP1/5; copy of customer feedback form; Ex.OP1/5 and affidavit of Alex Chandy dated 12.2.2015, Ex.OP1/7.

10. Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parma Nand dated 22.1.2015, Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file carefully.

12. The complaint is represented by the Authorized Representative (A.R). A.R of complainant has submitted that the material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one laptop from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. The problem started from time to time, which were got repaired. Lastly, the problem again started in the laptop and it stopped working. Opposite party No.1 has failed to remove the defect in the laptop. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant is entitled to relief claim.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the complainant has mis-stated the facts. The laptop was purchased by the complainant on 25.8.2013. As per the complainant himself, for the first time problem started in the laptop on 21.6.2014 i.e. after about 8 months. In case, there was any manufacturing defect in the laptop, it was not to function for the period of 8 months. Further the problem is alleged on 26.7.2014 i.e. one month after repair, this fact also shows that the laptop was having no manufacturing defect. Although, the complainant alleged that the laptop stopped working, but he has no detail regarding any defect. No report of any expert is brought on record to prove this fact. The warranty was to expire on 25.8.2014 and complaint has been filed on 13.8.2014 i.e. only couple of weeks before expiry of warranty period. The complaint is abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed.

14. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

15. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased one laptop from opposite party No.2 on 25.8.2013. It is also alleged that the laptop started giving problem on 21.6.2014 and 26.7.2014. Both times the defect was removed by opposite party No.1 after doing needful. Now, the complainant has again asserted that the laptop used to stop functioning while working. The complainant has explained the fault occurred in the laptop i.e. used to stop working. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 has not removed the defect after doing needful. The laptop is within the warranty period. Opposite party No.1 is bound to remove the defects in the laptop in question.

16. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to repair the laptop in question.

17. The compliance of this order be done within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

18. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

19. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

14-08-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member