DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 25th day of January, 2023
C.C. 138/2017
Complainant
Pramod P.M.,
S/o Balan Nair,
Veluthedath House,
MIE P.O, Kunnamangalam.
Opposite Parties
- 3G Mobile World,
3G Cam World,
SABA Centre, Mavoor Road,
Near Flyover, Kozhikode.
- Fortune Service,
Marry land Square,
Thiruthiyad Road,
Near BMH, Calicut.
- Lenovo Manufacturing Pvt Ltd.,
Level – 2, Fern Icon,
Outer Ring Road,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore – 37, Karnataka.
(OP1 by Adv. Sri. Dilkhush. V. K)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 16/04/2016 the complainant purchased A-2010 LENOVO mobile handset from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 5,500/- including tax. On using the handset, his voice was not audible to the person who was on the other side. The problem was more acute while receiving incoming calls. So he approached the first opposite party who directed him to the second opposite party, who is the authorised service centre. After 2 days, the second opposite party returned the handset to him stating that it was not having any manufacturing defect other than some software problems. But the problems repeated. On all those occasions, he approached the first and second opposite parties who gave the same answer. On 04/02/2017 and 20/03/2017 when the problem became acute, he approached the first and second opposite parties and demanded refund of the price. But they were not ready for that and stated that they could do only servicing. Till now the problem to the phone is not detected and solved. Hence the complaint for refund of the price along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The first and second opposite parties filed separate written versions. The third opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. The first opposite party has admitted the purchase of the handset by the complainant from their shop. But the allegations that the voice system of the handset became defective, for which, the complainant contacted the first opposite party who directed him to handover the handset to the second opposite party etc are false and hence denied. The complainant might have approached the second opposite party directly and the first opposite party is totally unaware of the matters that transpired between the complainant and the second opposite party. The complainant has not made any type of complaint to them. There is no allegation against them regarding any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. According to the second opposite party, there was no deficiency of service on their part and the service/repairs were done properly as and when reported. It was on 19/04/2016 that the complainant approached them with the complaint of voice system of the handset and the defect was rectified. The next visit of the complainant was on 04/02/2017 with mic problem. At that time, the touch side damage and scratches were noticed on the handset and this had been noted in the job sheet. The mic complaint was rectified. The third visit was on 23/03/2017 with the same mic complaint. At that time, the glass guard was seen broken and scratches were there on the body. The defect reported was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. All the service /repairs were done properly without collecting any repair charges. There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party. With the above contentions, the second opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. No evidence was let in by the opposite parties.
8. Heard.
9. Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission claiming refund of the purchase price of the handset along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the check list, Ext A2 is the copy of the service record, Ext A3 is the copy of the tax invoice dated 16/04/2016 and Ext A4 to A6 are the copies of the job sheets.
11. That on 16/04/2016 the complainant purchased A-2010 Black Lenovo model handset from the shop of the first opposite party paying Rs. 5,500/- including tax as per Ext A3 is admitted. The third opposite party is the manufacturer of the said handset. The second opposite party is the authorised service centre and the first opposite party is the dealer.
12. One of the prayers in the complaint is for refund of the purchase price of the product. But on a careful consideration and scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence in hand, it can be seen that there is absolutely nothing to show that the handset in question is having any manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has no specific allegation in this regard. Apart from the vague averment made in the complaint and repeated in the proof affidavit, the complainant has no specific allegation as to any manufacturing defect to the handset. Apart from this, the complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to show that the handset in question has any inherent manufacturing defect. Not even a single document has been placed on record to show that there is any manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such evidence, the liability of the manufacturer under the warranty is limited only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. So the prayer of the complainant for refund of the price cannot be granted.
13. The next point to be considered is as to whether there was any neglect on the part of the opposite parties to carry out the service/repairs properly and thus there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. At the threshold, it may be noted that there is no allegation for the complainant that the complaints reported were not promptly and properly attended to by the opposite parties. The contention of the first opposite party is that the complainant never approached them at any point of time and he directly approached the service centre. The evidence indicates that the first complaint was reported to the second opposite party on 19/04/2016 and complaint related to voice system of the handset and it was rectified by the second opposite party. The second complaint was on 04/02/2017 and the complaints were mic not working and data loss. Ext A4 is the job sheet dated 04/02/0217 and it shows that the touch side had damages and there were scratches on the back case of the handset when it was entrusted for repairs. The complaints reported were rectified by the second opposite party. The third complaint was on 23/03/2017 and Ext A5 is the job sheet pertaining to the same. Ext A5 shows that the complaints were mic not working properly, speaker sometimes not working and data loss. There was external damage such as glass guard broken and scratches on the body of the handset at that time. The complaints reported were also rectified by the second opposite party. According to the complainant, later the problem became more acute and he approached the first and second opposite parties. But there is absolutely no evidence to show that the complaints occurred again and the opposite parties were approached. It has come out in evidence that all those services/repairs were rendered by the second opposite party free of cost. It is admitted by PW1 that no charges were collected by the service centre for repairs. The complainant has no case that the service/repair was not proper or that there was delay. Moreover, there were external damages to the handset, for which, the complainant alone is responsible. There is no evidence of any latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of service/ repairs. In the absence of any such evidence, no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties.
14. It is well settled that in a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. In this case, there is no proof of any manufacturing defect in the handset in question or as to any deficient service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
15. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 11/04/2017.
Sd/-
PRESIENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the check list.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the service record.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the tax invoice dated 16/04/2016.
Ext. A4 – Copy of the job sheet.
Ext. A5 – Copy of the job sheet.
Ext. A6 – Copy of the job sheet.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Pramod. P. M (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
