Haryana

Ambala

CC/280/2017

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABBAR MOBILE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Hans Kumari

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  AMBALA                                                                                                                   

Consumer Complaint No	:	280 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	07.06.2018

Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.Om Parkash, R/o Quarter No.2, Block No.1, Central Jail, Ambala City aged about 35 years.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Babbar Mobile Store, Authorised dealer of Lenovo Mobile, Shukal Kund Chowk, Khanna Palace Road, Ambala City through its Proprietor.
2. Lenovo Service Centre, Shop No.175/7, First Floor, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt through its Proprietor.
3. Lenovo India Ltd., D Windson House, Level No.5, No.502, CST Rd, Kalian Santacruz East, Mumbai Maharashtra-400098 through its Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

BEFORE:             SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

For the Parties:         Ms.Hans Kumari, Adv., for the complainant.

                  Op No.1 and 3 already ex-parte.

                  Mr.Avtar Singh, Adv., for the OP No.2.

                 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora, President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Lenovo Dual Sim Mobile having IMEI No.86453703563462, from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.10,500/- vide bill invoice No.369 dated 26.05.2017 with the accessories including Head Phone, charger including cable. Within one month of purchase of mobile, the phone started giving problem as it did not work properly and second sim stopped working. The complainant approached the Op No.1 and informed about the problem and the OP No.1 advised him to approach the Op No.2 for repair of defect of mobile. The OP No.1 also assured the complainant that the OP No.2 would repair the defect in mobile free of costs as the mobile was within warranty period. As per the instruction of Op No.1, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 06.07.2017 who kept the mobile phone and asked him to visit after 4-5 days. After passing of 5 days, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and enquired about his mobile phone then employee of OP No.2 asked the complainant that pin of second slot of his mobile had been broken and he had to pay Rs.5500/- for removing the defect. On this, the complainant told the OP No.2 that the mobile phone was within warranty period and they had to repair the mobile phone free of costs but they did not listen. The Ops No.1 and 2 neither repaired the defect in the mobile phone nor returned the same to him after several visits and due to non-availability of mobile phone, the complainant had faced many difficulties. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Ferns Icons Level II, Doddenakundi village, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-560037, manufactures and sells personal computing solutions and mobile in India and is widely acclaimed for its strict quality checks and certifications. It is submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The warranty on every product, manufactured by the Op No.2 is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as contained in the service manual provided at the time of purchase of product, therefore, the complainant could not claim services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant has filed the complaint alleging manufacturing defect in product manufactured by OP No.2, without having produced any expert the opinion in the form of evidence, therefore, no cause of action arose against the Op No.2 as the handset of the complainant was found damaged condition which is not covered under warranty. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the registered office of OP No.2 is located at Banglore, Karnataka. The complainant had purchased a Lenovo having IMEI No.864537035634621 on 26.05.2017 with warranty of one year and six months warranty on charger, earphone and removable battery. On 30.05.2017, a service request was logged with Op No.2 to inspect complaint regarding mobile phone and the same was looked into by the authorized service engineer of Op No.2. After inspection, it was confirmed that the product had physical damaged which was not covered under warranty. Op No.2 is one of the most reputed company manufactures mobile phone in India. It was also informed to the complainant that service was assured on chargeable basis which was not accepted by the complainant and he insisted on service under the terms and warranty and refused to take delivery of the product. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The counsel for the complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A  alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.2 has made a separate statement that the written statement of OP No.2 may be read as the part of his evidence and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Lenovo Dual Sim mobile phone have IMEI No.864537035634621 vide invoice No.369 dated 26.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.10,500/- (Annexure C-1) with warranty of one year. The grievance of the complainant is that within one month of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem as it did not work properly and second sim of the mobile stopped working. The complainant approached the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center on 06.07.2017 for repair of mobile phone, who kept the same and asked him to come after 4-5 days. After 5 days, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for taking the delivery of his mobile phone, who told him that he had to pay Rs.5500/- for removing the defect as the second sim slot was broken. The complainant requested the Ops to repair the mobile phone free of costs as the same was within warranty period but they did not repair the same.
6. On the other hand, the Op No.2 has submitted that complainant had purchased a Lenovo having IMEI No.864537035634621 on 26.05.2017 with warranty of one year and six months warranty on charger, earphone and removable battery. The complainant approached the Op No.2 for repair of mobile phone whereas the mobile phone of the complainant was found damaged condition which was not covered under warranty. But the OP No.2 did not place on record any document or terms and conditions which shows that the repair of mobile phone did not cover within warranty period.
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 handset  within one month of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of use of the mobile handset. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are found deficient in not giving proper services to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
   1. To rectify the problem in mobile hand set in question free of costs and make it in working condition with the satisfaction of the complainant.
   2. To pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and 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 the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 07.06.2018               Member                President