Haryana

Panchkula

CC/226/2015

HARSH PATHAK. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBIKA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH TUNDWAL

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Harsh Pathak s/o Late Sh.Mahinder Kumar Pathak, R/o House No.663, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. Ambika Enterprises, SCO No.42, Sector-11, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.
2. Sant Rameshwari Enterprises, SCO No.26, First Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddena Kundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R.Pura, Hobli, Banglore-560037, (Karnataka) through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr.Naresh Tundwal, Adv., for the complainant.

              Ops No.1 and 2 already ex-parte.

              Mr.Jaimini Tiwari, Adv., for the Op No.3.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. Briefly stated that the complainant has purchased a Lenovo Mobile handset Model K900, Steel Gray vide IMEI No.860486023685118 on 14.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide bill No.005497 with warranty of one year from the OP No.1 with the assurance that the set was all right and would work effectively (Annexure C-3). After purchasing from the very first day, the phone started giving problem as the net problem, hanging problem, call drop, not responding and some software related problem etc. The complainant approached the Op No.1 who advised him to approach the Op No.2 for the rectification of the fault. The complainant approached the Op No.2 who disclosed that the handset was out of warranty. After inspection, the Op No.2 told that the mother board of the handset was corrupt and if the complainant wanted to repair the handset, he would have to spent amount from his own pocket. The complainant told the Op No.2 that the handset was within warranty period as he has purchased the handset on 14.10.2014 but the Op No.2 disclosed that as per record available with it, the handset was out of warranty. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.2 to replace the handset with new one but to no avail rather the Op No.2 told that “do whatever the complainant want and they are not bothering about any consumer/court case as they are facing various others.” The complainant also issued legal notice dated 02.09.2015 but to no avail. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to Ops No.1 and 2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.11.2015.
3. The Op No.3 has appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant should have approached the authorized service center i.e. OP No.2 instead of Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant should send the invoice to email-ID
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A alongwith documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Lenovo Mobile handset Model K900, Steel Gray vide IMEI No.860486023685118 on 14.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide bill No.005497 with warranty of one year from the OP No.1 (Annexure C-3). The grievance of the complainant is that the phone started giving problem as the net problem, hanging problem, call drop, not responding and some software related problem etc. from the very first day of purchase. The complainant approached the Op No.2 who told the complainant that the handset was out of warranty and the mother board of the handset was corrupt. If the complainant wanted to repair the handset, he would have to spent amount from his own pocket. The Op No.3 in its written statement also admitted that the warranty of the handset started from the date of purchase, therefore, the handset was under warranty and the Ops are liable to repair the same but the Ops demanded the repairable charges. However, the Op No.3 has not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of this contention. In the absence of any documentary proof that facts, pleading of the Ops are hollow and devoid of any merit. Moreover, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear to contest the complaint of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. The Ops failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the mobile handset was under warranty. Non-repairing of mobile in question despite repeated requests proves deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
7. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile phone from the very first day of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of possession of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To refund of Rs.20,000/- being the cost of the mobile hand set.
   2. To make the payment of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
   3. To make the payment of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

9. This order shall be complied with by the Ops jointly and severely within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which 9% interest shall be given till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

22.03.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR               DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER           MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT