BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.110 of 2016

Date of Instt. 11.03.2016

Date of Decision: 17.04.2018

Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Chaman Lal R/o House No.501, VPO Chugitti, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

2. Logic Computer's, Guru Amardass Market, Prem Palace, Ghara Road, Jalandhar.

3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd (Registered Office), Marathahalli, Banglore.

4. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Office), Sector 49, Delhi.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. HS Kathar, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.

Miss Abha Naagar, Adv Counsel for OP No.3 & 4.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is dealing in mobile phone and spare parts etc. The OP No.2 is the service centre of the said Lenovo mobile company. The OP No.3 is the registered office of Lenovo mobile phones and OP No.4 is the head office of the Lenovo mobile phones. That on 01.02.2016, the complainant purchased a mobile phone of Lenovo A7000-a from OP No.1, for consideration of Rs.10,300/-, vide Bill/Invoice No.55045. The complainant told his requirement of the mobile with clear instructions to OP No.1 that the mobile should not be hanged/freeze. The complainant also asked about the warranty and guaranty of the above said mobile phone. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said mobile is with 2GB RAM, which was displaced specifically on box as well as booklet of the said mobile and also told that such huge RAM could not freeze/hang the said mobile and the OP No.1 also assured that in case of any defect or the said mobile hang/freeze, the OP No.1 to 4 would be responsible and the said mobile would be replaced and the guaranty is for one year. As per assurance of the OP No.1, the complainant purchased the above said Lenovo A7000-a. At the time of purchase of the above said mobile, G.R. Palli and Ashok Kumar etc. were present and others were also present throughout when the transaction of the sale purchase took place at the shop of the OP No.1.

2. That on the very next day i.e. 02.02.2016, the above said mobile started freezing. The complainant contacted with the OP No.1 to 4, but after some settings in the said mobile, the said mobile remained freezing. The complainant visited a number of times at the office of the OP No.1 and 2 and contacted with other OPs, but they put the matter pending on one pretext or the others. Ultimately, the OP No.1 and 2 refused to replace and cure/repair the above said mobile. On 15.02.2016, a separate email in the shape of legal notice has sent to OPs, but all in vain. Now, the said mobile is freezing, flash of mobile turned on without any command, said mobile used to switch off without any command and the battery and mobile is heating too much, such heating problem may burst the said mobile, which may cause injury to complainant and any other person. The OP No.1 has sold the defected products to the complainant, thus the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and played fraud with the complainant, as such, the complainant suffered great mental agony, harassment and financial loss. So, the complainant is entitled to claim of damages from the OPs for mental agony, financial loss and harassment caused due to unfair trade practice and negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs may kindly be directed to return the bill amount of Rs.10,300/- alongwith interest and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment to the complainant and OPs be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

3. Notice of the compliant was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4. OP No.2 appeared and filed written reply and contested the compliant by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP No.2 as the complainant never approached the office of the OP No.2 for the repair of the handset. On merits, para No.2 of the complaint in regard to purchase of the mobile phone is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. OP No.3 and 4 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as no bill has been produced. The purchase of handset cannot be validated as no invoice has been attached with the complaint. It is further alleged that there is no record of any problem being reported in the mobile phone allegedly purchased by the complainant. No job sheet or any other relevant documents have been attached with the complaint in regard to visiting of service centre or what problem was reported/diagnosed. Without prejudice, if any problem is reported within warranty period, the same would be rectified free of cost as per warranty terms and further alleged that the mobile being a complex electronic device is prone to software/hardware problems and it is precisely due to such fact that warranty is offered for one year. The OP is always ready and willing to adhere to such warranty terms and conditions and there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the replying OP. On merits it is admitted that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 along with some documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and also tendered affidavit of one G. R. Lohar as Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence.

7. Similarly, counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and then closed the evidence and similarly, counsel for the OP No.3 and 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3&4/A along with documents Ex.OP3&4/1 and Ex.OP3&4/2 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9. In nutshell, the claim of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone of Lenovo A7000-a from the OP, for consideration of Rs.10,300/-, who issued a bill dated 01.02.2016 Ex.C-1, but after purchase, the mobile in question started giving problem in regard to freezing, flash of mobile turned on without any command, said mobile used to switch off without any command and the battery and mobile is heating too much, much heating problem may burst the said mobile, which may cause injury to complainant and any other person and thereafter, the matter was reported to the OP No.1 and 2, but they refused to replace and cure the defect and then complainant sent a legal notice in the shape of email on 15.02.2016, but no action was taken by the OP and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to return the amount of the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.10,300/- along with interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

10. On the other hand, the OP No.2, who is a service centre categorically deposed that the complainant never approached to the Service Centre, if approached, then a Job Sheet must be issued to the complainant and similarly, OP No.3 and 4 also alleged that the complainant has not produced on the file any Job Sheet or any documentary proof to show that there is any problem to the mobile was being reported to the OP No.2 to 4 at any time and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is filed, just to harass the OP.

11. We have gone through the file and find that the complainant has proved on the file his own affidavit Ex.CW1 and bill of the mobile Ex.C-1 and Postal Receipt Ex.C-2 and affidavit of one G.R. Lohar Ex.CW2/A, except that no document produced on the file by the complainant. It is clearly established that the version of the complainant is categorically denied by the OPs, if OP admitted that the complainant submitted his mobile phone in the Service Centre, then question may be different, but if there is no Job Sheet available, then a duty casted upon the complainant to establish the factum in regard to any defect occurred in the mobile phone, but admittedly the complainant has not brought on the file any documentary evidence in the shape of report of any mechanic or expert to establish that there is any defect in the mobile, if so then, the version of the complainant is not established, simply on the basis of oral evidence and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant could not able to establish the charges leveled in the complaint and therefore, complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

17.04.2018 Member President