Date of Filing:27/10/2016
Date of Order:04/07/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to refund a sum of Rs.32,999/- the cost of the mobile phone ‘Lenovo Vibe Z2 Pro’ and to direct the O.ps to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation with cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, it is stated that, complainant had purchased the Lenovo Vibe Z2 Pro’ mobile hand set through online portal Flipkart.com. O.P.No.1 is manufacturer and O.P.No.2 is the service center. It is specific allegation of the complainant is that, on 22.07.2015 complainant noticed that there were various technical gliches in it i.e. phone would hang and the screen would black out. On such occasion the complainant reboots the phone to use again. Hence the compalainant on 22.07.2015 approached the O.P.No.2 in order to resolve the problems of the phone, as the phone covers under the warranty period. It is further alleged that, after lapse of considerable time and upon continuous follow-ups, O.Ps informed the complainant that the phone had issues with the mother board which may need to be replaced and ultimately O.Ps handed over the phone in the month of Novermber 2015 after resolving the problems. Further states that after few days the same problems persists and by March 2016 complainant escalated the issue to one Mr.Sudipto Ghosh, the Executive Director of the O.P.No.1. Upon formation of a special team to look out into the complainant’s phone issue the problems will be solved and they would attain the problem at the earliest but the issues of the phone in question was not resolved. Hence there are several e-mail communications made with the O.ps and the complainant alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as they failed to resolve the problems occurred in the mobile hadset in question. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice to O.Ps. O.P.No.1 appeared through their coulsel filed its version. Whereas O.P.No.2 remained absent and hence O.P.No.2 placed exparte.
4. In the versionof O.P.No.1 it is contended that, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.P.No.1 and the complaint is filed is devoid of any merits. It is submitted that complainant lodged a complaint with authorized service center of the answering O.P for the first time on 22.07.2016 for ‘power on off issue’ and ‘touch issue’. For which software was upgraded and the service call was closed on 25.07.2015 and this is the evidence that the complainant used the mobile handset in question for almost 10 months without any issues. Further it is contended that, the warranty period of the phone in question as expired on 05.10.2015 and the manufacturer of the mobile handset (model 2014) belongs to complainant and its spare parts are not readily available, the service center did their best and have repaired the phone free of cost by obtaining the required part. The phone is now in good working condition and ready for collection. It is contended that, complainant has claimed that his phone was returned to the service center for repairs in the month of November 2015 just after 10 days of the collection of the phone from the service center, but the complainant has not adduced any proof of the same. Further answering O.P denies all the other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(A) & (B):-
8. On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset i.e Lenovo Vibe Z2 Pro through online transaction from portal Flipkart.com. Further it is not in dispute that the O.P.No.1 is the manufacturer and O.P.No.2 is the service center of the product of the O.P.No.1.
9. The specific allegation of the complainant is that, from the date of purchase of the handset in question after the 10 months it had some problems like the phone would hang and the screen would black out and disabling him from the use of the mobile handset. Hence the complainant within the warranty period prior to two months expiry period handed over to O.P No.2 service center and ultimately after repairing the said phone returned back to the complainant. It is the allegation of the complainant is that, inspite of the service of the phone, the problems again occurred again after some months and hence the said handset once again given to service provider. It is alleged that, though several follow-ups made O.P did not service the same and hence alleged the deficiency in service on their part.
10. Per-contra, O.P contended that, complainant used the phone more than 10 months from the date of purchase and first time the complainant given it for service in the month of July 2015 and after attaining the problems and after rectifying the defects and the mobile handset is repaired to the usable condition and returned back to the complainant. Further contended that once again i.e. in the month of May 2016 complainant once again given the mobile for service for the problems by the time, the manufacuturing of the mobile handset of the same modle was stopped but after many follow-up with the Pune Service Centre branch ultimately repaired the said mobile handset to the worthy condition and informed the complainant to receive back the said phone but the complainant did not come forward to get the mobile. It is specifically contended that, when the second time mobile was given by the complainant there was no warranty period but as goodwill of gesture they repaired it to usable condition and the mobile handset is good in its condition. But the complainant demanding refund of the amount without any cause and against the warranty terms and conditions.
11. It is pertinent to note that on perusing the copy of the invoice i.e. Doc.No.1 it is evident that the complainant purchased the handset in question on 6.10.2014 through portal flipkart.com. It is not in dispute the warranty for the handset in question is for one yearonly. On perusal of Doc.No.2, it is evident that the complainant was given it for service to the O.P.No.2 on 22.7.2015 for to attend power on/off issues as it is revealed from the Doc.No.2. The Doc.No.2 clearly reveals that the complainant handed over the mobile handset for service after using 10 months just two months prior to expiry of warranty period. Furthermore, it is the saying of the complainant once again the complainant handed over the handset in question for service during the month of May 2016 and it is clearly evident that by that time warranty period is expired.
12. It is note worthy to mention that, during the course of proceedings the O.Ps fairly submitted that as a goodwill of gesture though there is no warranty they already repaired the handset in question and repaired it to the worthy condition, but though the O.Ps informed the complainant but the complainant did not ready to receive back the same. Further it is pertinent to note that, during the course of arguments the O.Ps also brought the handset in question and demonstrated before the open court and we noticed that the mobile handset in question is working properly and the O.Ps repaired to the worthy condition though there was not covered with the warranty period. But for the reasons best known to the complainant who is not ready to receive the handset back but insisting for refund of the amount without any defects in the product and having no cause. The law mandates that, no one should be enriched at the cost of others and law will not allow the same. Further now a days as the scientific world as advancing very rapidly and every year the mobile companies manufactures new handsets by stoping the old model handset. If such being the case, when the complainant has handed over the mobile handset for second time in order to resolve the issues by that time warranty period was expired but due to non-availability of spare parts, O.Ps have taken time to repair the same and it cannot be attributed as deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant failed to make out the difference between the warranty and guaranty. Whenever the warranty is given on any product and during the warranty period if any defects occurred in the mobile handset, it is the duty of the manufacturer and its service provider should attend the proper and repaired the same to the worthy condition by removing the defects and that has been done by the O.Ps.
13. In the light of above discussion, we reached to conclusion that, complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as sought in the complaint. Accordingly we answered these points in the Negative.
POINT (C):
14. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the Negative, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 4th Day of July 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
