BEFORE THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM B.M.T.C BUS STAND,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer case No. 374/2019
K.S Mallikaarjuna Reddy………………………………………….Complainant
Versus
Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd……………………………………………….Opposite party
REPLY/REJOINDER TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT
ON CONSUMER CASE NO. 374/2019 ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY
VIZ., ADVOCATE K. V. OMPRAKASH, M/S CONSCIENTIA LAW
ASSOCIATES
Preliminary Objections:
1. That this reply is being filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 –
Advocate K. V. Omprakash, M/s Conscientia Law Associates
(Hereinafter referred to as the Answering Opposite Party).
2. That the Answering Opposite Party humbly submits that he is an
Advocate, Proprietor and founder of M/s Conscientia Law Associates,
having its registered office at: No. 286/48, Indira Towers, 8 th Main, 11th
Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore which is a law firm that offers expert
legal opinions and represents body corporates in consumer and civil
suits. It is submitted that Lenovo (India) Private Limited (Opposite Party
No. 1), is a manufacturer and importer of high quality Laptops, Mobile
phones and tablets. Lenovo (India) Private Limited has engaged and
availed the professional services of M/s Conscientia Law Associates for
handling the consumer related matters Pan-India and for legal
representation in the present matter as well and therefore, it can be
deduced that the Answering Opposite Party acts merely in capacity of a
legal service provider to Opposite Party No.1.
3. At the outset, it is submitted that all the averments and allegations
made and contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint are
denied as baseless, misconceived, not maintainable, untenable and an
abuse of the process of the law and liable to be dismissed, unless
specifically admitted and accepted hereto. The contentions raised and
the averments and allegations made in the complaint that are not
specifically denied, admitted or replied to shall be deemed to have been
denied.
4. That the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and is
liable to be dismissed with costs to the Complainant. It is stated that
the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean
hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting material facts. The
contents which are not addressed to are not to be considered as
accepted by the Answering Opposite Party. The present complaint is
false, frivolous, misconceived and vexatious in nature and has been
filed with the sole intention of harassing the Opposite Parties.
Parawise Reply:
5. It is most respectfully and humbly submitted that the
contention of para No. 2 i.e. the Complainant had purchased a
laptop manufactured by Lenovo India Pvt Ltd on 2nd April
2016 and that the Machine came with International warranty
for 1 Year is partially true. It is pertinent to mention here that
the machine is not manufactured by Lenovo India Pvt Ltd as
machine is showing of Malaysia.
6. That, the contention of para No.4 stated by the complainant
i.e. After 10 months machine was not powering on. On
searching the complainant came to know that the Respondent
no.4 is one of the authorized service centre of the laptops and
other gadgets manufactured and sold by the respondent No.1
in Bangalore City is accepted to be true.
7. That, the contention of para No. 5 i.e. the complainant
brought the laptop to the office of the respondent No.4 to
diagnose the problem on 18/02/2017 is accepted to be true.
8. That, the contention of para No. 6 i.e. at the time of collecting
the laptop, the respondent No.5 inspected the laptop and took
delivery of the laptop on 18/02/2017 on the behalf on
respondent No.4 and issued an acknowledgement slip
evidencing that the laptop was handed over to the respondent
No.4. Is accepted to be true.
9. That, the contention raised by the complainant is para No.7 is
false and thereby denied. It is pertinent to mention here that
as the warranty of machine was not registered it would have
been showing OOW. In such scenarios every authorized SVC
asks for invoice copy and the same was asked by the
respondent no.5.
10. That, the contention of Para. No 8 is denied. It is submitted
that the Invoice is requested by all Service centres to validate
the warranty of the machine if not reflecting/not registered.
There is no such intent of wrong doing as it is a Lenovo policy
too which the respondent No.4 was following to validate the
warranty of any Lenovo machine. Further, if the machine is
purchased out of India then the passport is also asked to
authenticate the purchase.
11. That, the contention raised in para no.9 is partially correct. It
is submitted that there was communication made to the
complainant informing that RAM was missing. However the
Exibit – 4 is not available. That, this was a miscommunication
initially which was rectified later.
12. That, the contention of Para No. 10 is partially correct. It is
pertinent to mention here that all Lenovo products have a
default warranty which was reflecting from date of
manufacture. Respondent no. 4 didn’t deny accepting the
laptop & did asked for invoice copy from complainant to
validate same. This is confirmed by complainant himself in the
Para 7 & 8. It is thereby submitted that there is no point
accusing the respondent for holding any wrong intention.
13.
