Haryana

Karnal

CC/214/2015

Tek Chand S/o Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Lenova India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mahinder Singh

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.     

                                                                Complaint No. No.214 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt.: 10.09.2015

                                                                Date of decision:28 .03.2016

 

Tek Chand son of Sh.Raghubir Singh resident of VPO Kachhwa,(Dera Ranbir Nagar), Karnal tehsil and District Karnal.

.                                              ……..Complainant. .

                                      Vs.

1.LENOVO India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, registered  office at Vatlka Business Park, Ist Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sector – 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122001.

2.HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD.(Blackberry)expert center through its Manager, authorized repair location SCO No.353, Ground floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal.(Given up on 21.12.2015).

1.LENOVO India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, registered  office at Vatlka Business Park, Ist Floor, Badshah Pur Road, Sector – 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon 122001.

3.TARA TELE AND MOBILE Shop No.35, Mela Ram School Market, Karnal through its Manager, SCO No.35, Mugal Canal, Karnal tehsil and District Karnal.

4.SWAAGAT, the Communication People, Sony Advantage STORE, 220-221, Ist Floor, Kunjpura Road, above Peter England Garments Opposite Head Post Office, Karnal 132001 , Haryana, India..

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-       Sh.Mohinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Opposite Party no.2 given up on  21.12.2015.

                          Opposite Parties no.1,3 and 4 ex parte.

ORDER:           

                       

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Mobile of Lenovo bearing  IMEI No. 864366026998633, Model  No.5650  from Opposite Party no.4  for Rs.12,600/-, vide bill No. 45242 dated  1.08.2014.  Immediately after its purchase, the problems of  No Power/touch screen and charging developed in the  said mobile set. He  made complaints to the Opposite Parties and handed over the said mobile set for repairs to the service centre, but the same could not be repaired.  On 15.4.2015,  he handed over the  set to the Opposite Party no.2 regarding the problems of power and charging, but after two months, the set was returned to him without repairing/ solving problems and he was referred to Opposite Party no.3. Then on 6.5.2015, he approached the Opposite Party no.3  who noted the problems and gave computerized slip, but the problems continued as earlier.  On 22.7.2015, he again approached Opposite Party no.3 and handed over the set for  repairs. A slip/job order No.949 was given to him after noting the problems. Thereafter, the set was neither repaired nor handed over to him. When he  again approached the Opposite Party no.2 and 3, they refused to attend him and misbehaved with him. In fact, there was manufacturing defect in his mobile set and the Opposite Parties neither removed the defects nor replaced the set, which amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on their part,  due to which he suffered mental harassment  apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. None put into appearance on behalf of Opposite Parties no.1,3 and 4, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them, vide order dated 29.10.2015.  The  Opposite Party no.2 was given up by the complainant as unnecessary  on 21.12.2015, therefore, its name was ordered to be struck off from the array of the  Opposite Parties.

 

3.                In exparte evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex./C4 have been tendered.

 

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                The complainant had purchased one  LENOVO  mobile phone from the . Opposite Party no.4 for Rs.12,600/-, vide bill dated 1.8.2014, the copy of which is Ex.C1. The complainant also produced job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 to establish that he made complaints regarding defects   in the mobile set. As per Ex.C4, the mobile was dead on 22.7.2015. The warranty of mobile set was of one year. The complainant by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterated the allegations. This oral as well as documentary  evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the evidence of the complainant, it is established that defects which appeared in the  mobile set during warranty period were not removed by the  Opposite parties. However, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant.  The Opposite Parties were duty bound to remove the defects free of charges during the warranty period and not doing so, amounted to deficiency in services on their part.

 

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties 1, 3 and 4 to repair the mobile set of the complainant and if the same is not repairable, the Opposite Parties No.1,3 and 4  shall replace the same. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.1100/- for the mental agony and pain caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties no.1, 3 and 4 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:28.03.2016

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Mohinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Opposite Party no.2 given up vide order dated 21.12.2015.

                          Opposite Parties o.1,3 and 4 ex parte

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:28.03.2016

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.