26/11/2012.
Complainant : Binoy Abraham, Pazhamchirayil House,
Karakurussi.P.O., Palakkad .
(By Advs.A.Radhakrishnan&Manoj Ambat, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. M/s.Lenovo, 2nd floor, Fair Wind, No.10/3, Embassy
Golf Links Business Park, Challaghatta village,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, rep. by its Manager.
(By Adv.Deepu.K.V., North Paravur)
2. M/s.Digital @ Home, New Shakthan Ring Road,
Thrissur, rep. by General Manager.
3. M/s.Digi Care, Valiyanoor Road, Trichur, rep. by
General Manager.
(By Adv.Paulochan Antony.P, Thrissur for R2&R3)
ORDER
By M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complaint is filed against the alleged manufacturing defect to the laptop purchased by the complainant. The case in brief is that the complainant purchased a laptop computer manufacturer by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent on 25/5/2007. Its model No. was No.52Q CEL 1.73/512/60 and serial No.MA5ZLOB. Even from the beginning, the system was not functioning properly. The complainant could not get the required battery standby time and the working that complainant got at first was 45 minutes which subsequently got reduced to 15 minutes. The complainant complained directly to the customer care centre of the 1st respondent through toll free number. Even after repeated complaints no follow up action was taken and the complainant directly approached the 2nd respondent. After that the system was sent for repair. In response to the complaint the system was repaired and the faulty Battery was replaced on 8/3/2008. But even after the repairing the complainant did not get the requisite battery backup time The battery backup time has really come down. The complainant had not been able to get even one minute of backup time. So the complainant was constrained to work in normal AC current and if there is power cut or sudden power break out the system which is run on AC current would switch off without automatically changing and switching over to battery. Hence many important documents were deleted. Even though the complainant again contacted the 1st respondent no help was forthcoming. So he again hand over the system to the 3rd respondent to have the system repaired on 6/8/2008. But the complaint has been refused because it is out of time. The laptop was returned without effecting any repair on 21/8/08. The computer continued to show the same problem. Due to the erratic functioning of the computer the complainant has put to great loss. The complainant was assured years of satisfactory and uninterrupted work by the respondent. But within one year from the purchase the system is totally nonfunctional most of the time. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The counter averments raised by the 1st respondent are that the complainant purchased a laptop manufactured by him on 25/5/07 from the 2ndrespondent. The products manufactured by the 1st respondent is of good quality with necessary standby time which will vary with regard to each model. The allegation to the effect that the complainant made complaints to the 1st respondent and no complaint number were given is denied. From the complainants statement it is from 25/5/07 the laptop in question was not functioning properly. The complainant used the laptop for more than 9 months after he first noticed the complaint to the machine. The laptop was repaired by the 1st respondent and the battery was replaced. It was done by the 1st respondent considering the warranty though the machine was damaged because of complainant’s negligence. The old battery was replaced by new battery and it is false to say that the complainant did not get the required back up then. It is stated that from July 2008 the complainant noted complaints to the laptop for second time and it can be seen that at that time he produced the laptop on 6/8/2008 for repairs that is after nearly five months he noticed complaint for second time. The complainant is totally negligent in using the laptop and producing for repair. If a particular machine is used even though some complaints noted by its user the machine will naturally become more complaint. The problem is only of back up time of battery when there is any power failure. The 1st respondent provides warranty for one year which ended on 25/5/2008. It can be seen that the complainant produced the laptop for the second time on 6/8/2008 that is after warranty period. Averments to the contrary are denied. The statement to the effect that warranty period was continuing after replacement of battery is false and so it is denied. The averments to the effect that the complainant sustained many loss and difficulties are denied. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a version stating that they are the dealers of the 1st respondent company. It is the 1st respondent the manufacturer to replace the laptop and not the dealers. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are only a mediator between the complainant and the 1st respondent and there is no other obligation towards the complainant. It is true that the complainant had bought Lenevo laptop manufactured by the 1st respondent from the 2nd and 3rd respondent on 25/5/07. The complainant had given the laptop on 7/3/08 on the complaint that the battery of the laptop have no battery backup. The laptop was returned from service centre on 8/3/08 after replacing the battery and the same was handed over to the complainant. On 27/3/08, the complainant approached the 3rd respondent on complaint that the DVD writer is not reading properly. The laptop was sent to the service centre on the same day and it was returned on 12/4/08 after rectifying the defect. At last on 6/8/08 the complainant approached the 3rd respondent on complaint that the laptop have no battery backup. The same was sent to the service centre. But the service centre did not accept the same on the reason that warranty period was lapsed. The warranty period for the laptop and its accessories is for one year. It is also clearly mentioned that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not able to answer the technical aspects regarding laptop. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. Points for consideration are that :
1) Is the complainant entitled to replace the laptop with a brand new laptop?
2) Other reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence adduced are Exhibits P1 to P5 and Exhibit C1 and the oral testimony by the PW1. The respondents have no evidence to adduce.
6. Points : The complainant purchased the laptop computer from the 2nd respondent on 25/5/2007. It was manufactured by the 1st respondent. The complainant has stated that the system has not been working properly since its purchase. He could not get the required battery standby time. But even after repeated complaints the 1st respondent did not do any follow up action. So he approached the 2nd respondent and complained about the battery backup time. The system was repaired and the faulty battery was replaced. But the complainant did not get the requisite battery backup time. And the battery backup time has really come down. And the system could not be operated at the time of power failure. As a result of this the complainant lost valuable documents. The complainant handed over the system to the 3rd respondent for repairing on 6/8/08. But it was returned without repairing it on 21/8/08. Hence the assurance of satisfactory and uninterrupted service for years was in vain. The 1st respondent has stated that the product manufactured by him is of good quality with necessary standby time. The complainant purchased the laptop on 25/5/07 and he used it for more than nine months after he noticed the complaints to the device. When he complained about the battery it was replaced. It was done considering the warranty period though the defect occurred due to the negligence from the complainant. The complainant complained against the battery at the second time on 6/8/2008. And the warranty period ended on 25/5/08. So it was returned without repairing it. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have also stated that the laptop was returned without curing the defects at the second time as the period of warranty was lapsed.
7. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P5 marked. The complainant purchased the disputed laptop on 25/7/07. It is the complaint that the laptop lacks the required battery backup. Exhibit P2 reveals that the laptop was bought for repairing its battery and the battery was replaced at that time. At the same time it is revealed from Exhibit P3 that the laptop was again bought on 6/8/08 for no battery backup. From these evidence, it is revealed that the complainant did not get the required battery back time from the beginning itself. PW1 has admitted that the period of warranty was one year.
8. Exhibit C1 is the report received from the expert commissioner on this issue. The commission has found that the disputed leavono laptop works only in direct supply. The battery of the laptop is not charging properly and also that the replaced battery is not functioning. The 1st respondent filed objection in accepting Exhibit C1. And the notice was sent to examine the commissioner. But since the commissioner was not available the procedure against him was closed.
9. The complaint is that the complainant did not get the required battery backup. He complained about it within the period of warranty. And the respondents replaced the battery. Even then the complaint against the battery continued and the complainant complained about it again. But the laptop was not repaired simply because that the period of warranty was over. It is proved from Exhibit C1 that the replaced battery is also not functioning. So the respondents failed to cure the defect, that persisted from the beginning of the purchase itself. So they are liable to replace the device with a branded new one.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to replace the laptop purchased by the complainant with a branded new one and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation with costs Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of November 2012.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Invoice
Ext.P2 Service report
Ext.P3 Service receipt
Ext.P4 Copy of lr. dt.6/8/2008
Ext.P5 Reply lr. dt.20/8/2008
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – Binoy Abraham
Ext.C1 – Commission report
Id/-
Member
