This is a complaint made by Smt. Barnali Banerji against Customer Service Manager, Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. and two others, praying for a direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation; a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the price of new mobile set and litigation cost for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-.

Facts, in brief, are that Complainant purchased one Lenovo A 680 mobile set on 19-09-2014.  However, within few months of its use, various problems cropped up with the handset.  So, the defective handset was handed over to one of the authorized service centres of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., i.e., OP No. 3 on 24-04-2015.  It is alleged that OP No. 3 took more than two months to repair the handset and returned the same to the Complainant on 27-06-2015.  It is stated that when her vigorous perseverance of the matter with the OPs did not yield any positive result, she was compelled to buy another mobile phone on 12-05-2015.  Taking strong exception to the harassment meted out to her, thanks to the alleged lackadaisical attitude of the OPs, Complainant filed this case.

OP Nos. 1&2 contested the case by filing WV, whereby they denied all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is further stated that they duly honoured the warranty claims and repaired the mobile phone, free of cost, and informed the same to the Complainant on 11-05-2015.  It is submitted that the Complainant gave the mobile phone to the OP No. 3 to solve power key issue.  However, as requisite part was readily not available, necessary indent was placed.  Subsequently, another call was logged vide no. BEH/LO/15/00031 and once the requisite part were made available, the same was repaired and the call closed on 11-06-2015 and the matter was duly informed to the Complainant via email.  Claiming that they repaired the mobile handset within a reasonable period, they prayed for dismissal of this case.

Point to be considered is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for, or not.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief against which some questionnaire were put forth from the side of the OP Nos. 1&2 and the Complainant replied to the same under affidavit.  Similarly, OP Nos. 1&2 also filed Affidavit-in-Evidence, to which Complainant filed questionnaire and thereafter, the OP Nos. 1&2 filed Reply-on-Affidavit.

The first relief sought for by the Complainant is for payment of compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- Besides this, she has also prayed for reimbursement of the cost of new mobile handset and litigation cost.

It appears that the smart phone was handed over to the OP No. 3 on 24-04-2015 to sort out power key problems.  It is stated by the OP No. 1&2 that due to non-availability of necessary part, the call was initially closed after placing necessary order for supply of part and subsequently, another call was logged vide no. BEH/LO/15/00031 and once the part were made available, the same was replaced and the call closed on 11-06-2015.  Thus, it appears that due to non-availability of requisite part, OPs could not repair the smart phone of the Complainant. 

No doubt, when a service centre takes two months to repair a handset, it is bound to cause great inconvenience to the customer.  Having said that, there is no denying the fact that, in case requisite part is not readily available with the service centre at the relevant point of time, it can do precious little to mitigate the sufferings of customers.  Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the warranty clauses do not spell out any fixed time frame for making good a defect.  In such circumstances, even though such delay in repairing a mobile handset is not desirable under any circumstances, no liability can be attributed to the service cetnre/manufacturer.  The Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, upheld the view that it is beyond the scope of a Court of Law to rewrite the terms & conditions of a warranty.  Therefore, in absence of any specific time frame to repair the mobile hand set, and more so, for want of any credible evidence of deliberate apathy to repair the mobile handset concerned, we afraid, despite having our full sympathy towards the inconvenience faced by the Complainant, we cannot award any relief in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/85/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP Nos. 1&2 and ex parte against the OP No. 3, but without any cost.