IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD, AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 63/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
20.04.2017 16.05.2017 17.07.2018
- Aditya Nath Upadhyay, advocate,
S/O Late Sambhu Kali Upadhyay,
18/5, S.B. Bagchi Road,
P.O & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, PIN-742101
…………… Complainant.
-vs-
- Distributor – Mondal Agency,
103/1, B.B. Sen Road, P.O. Khagra,
P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad,
PIN-742103, (N.F Name- Kink Tele Com.)
- Distributor- Gouri Traders, G-5 & 6 Commercial Complex,
Netaji Market, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad, PIN- 742101
- Mampi Dutta, Lenovo Service Centre,
15/1, Swarnamoyee Market, Station Road,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad PIN- 742101.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
- Manager- Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Doddanakundic
Village Marathahall outer, Ring Road,
K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore – 560037 ......... Opposite Parties.
In person, Aditya Nath Upadhyay, Advocate ……… for Complainant
Utpal Kumar Paul, Advocate ….……… for Opposite Party No.1
Surojit Banerjee, Advocate ….……… for Opposite Party No.2
Sukanta Mondal, Advocate ….……… for Opposite Party No.3&4
Present : Sri Asish Kumar Senapati …. ……… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainants, contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the Complainants by the Opposite Parties.
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Lenovo Mobile Phone vide No. A – 2010 from the Opposite Party no. 2 for cost of Rs. 5,700/- only on 10.10.2016 by issuing receipt. But after 2 months using the same the said Mobile phone was not functioning and
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
on instruction of the Opposite Party No. 2 the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party No. 3 for repairing and after checking the said Mobile phone in question the Opposite Party No. 3 asked the Complainant to deposit the same for repairing but the Complainant further went to the Opposite Party No. 2 and requested them to change/replace the said Mobile hand set as because the said Mobile hand set was within the warranty period and moreover the Complainant had no other Mobile phone in his hand and being a professional the Complainant was in urgent necessity of a Mobile phone but the Opposite Party paid no heed to it.
Thereafter, having no other alternative the Complainant had handed over the said Mobile phone in question to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.12.2016 for necessary repairing. On 21.12.2016, after getting the information from the Opposite Party No. 2 to take return the said Mobile hand set after due repairing works, the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 for taking the same but at the time of returning the said Mobile hand set could not be opened even the Opposite Party No. 2 also failed to open the same. In this situation the Opposite Party No. 2 again instructed the Complainant to go to the Opposite party No. 3 but this time the Complainant refused to repair the said Mobile and requested for replacement of the said Mobile Phone in question but the Opposite Parties did not do the same what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 have filed separate Written Versions denying the contention made by the Complainant in his complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, barred by limitation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 1 in gist, is that, this Opposite Party has been appointed as Re – Distribution Stockiest (R.D.S) by Regional Distributors of Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. in Eastern India for Lenovo Mobile Phone and Lenovo Original mobile Accessories on 07.09.2016.
It is not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party No. 1 that from whom the Complainant had purchased his Mobile Phone in dispute and whether the Opposite Party No. 2 or 3 had misbehaved with the Complainant with any point or not. Moreover, the Complainant has not stated any specific allegation against this Opposite Party No. 1 in his petition of Complaint and thus this Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the instant case against them.
The Opposite Party No. 2 by filing his Written Version specifically stated that the said Mobile Hand Set in dispute was sold on 10.1.02016. After purchasing the said Mobile the Complainant alleged that the said Mobile was not working and this Opposite Party No. 2 asked the Complainant to contact with the Service Centre and the Complainant had handed over the said Mobile Hand Set to the Service Centre on 11.12.2016. After examining the said Mobile it was found operating and being satisfied the Complainant had taken the said Mobile from the Service Centre.
Thereafter the Complainant used the said Mobile for long time and being an old man the Complainant did not know the norms of using the said Mobile in question which is an Android Set and actually the Complainant has used the said Mobile in wrong manner. The Complaint was made after thought with false plea of defect with an ulterior motive.
So this Opposite Party no. 2 had denied any deficiency and negligence to provide services towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
The specific case stated by the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 in their Written Version is that this Opposite Party is one of the most reputed Mobile Phone manufacturers in India and their products are subject to strict quality checks and certifications. The Complainant has filed this complaint alleging manufacturing defect without having produced any Expert Opinion and/or any documentary proof regarding the same whereas these Opposite Parties strictly denied the allegation of manufacturing defect.
This answering Opposite Party is the Service Centre and on a service request being No. “SOIN 0235121612190011” was lodged for the Lenovo A – 2010 (with IMEI no. 861718035788103) to inspect ringer and speaker issues. But the Complainant refused to hand over the said Mobile set towards this answering Opposite Parties for due repairing and the said Mobile set was returned to the Complainant and the said service request was closed with Complainant’s refusal to leave the Mobile set in dispute for servicing. These Opposite Parties was willing to provide the required services free of charges but could not do being declined by the Complainant. Subsequently these Opposite Parties also tried to provide amicable relief towards the Complainant but failed due to Complainant himself.
Thus these answering Opposite Parties denied any sort of deficiency and/or negligence in rendering proper services towards the Complainant by any means and prayed for dismissal of this case against them.
Point for Determination
1. Whether the instant case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?
3. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that, whether the Opposite Parties are liable for not replacing the said Mobile phone in dispute in favour of the Complainant or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Lawyers for Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for all Opposite Parties and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is a consumer under all these Opposite Parties by purchasing a Lenovo Mobile Phone vide No. A – 2010 (with IMEI no. 861718035788103) from the Opposite Party no. 2 for cost of Rs. 5,700/- only on 10.10.2016 which is also revealed from the photocopy of the document filed by the Complainant.
The record manifestly reveals that the Complainant alleged that the said Mobile phone was found to be defective after 2 months from the date of purchasing the same and within the warranty period what the Complainant informed to the Opposite Party No. 2 and on instruction of the Opposite Party No. 2 the Complainant met with the Opposite Party No. 3 for repairing the said Mobile and after checking the said Mobile phone in question the Opposite Party No. 3 asked the Complainant to hand over the said defective Mobile phone for repairing.
But admittedly the Complainant stated that he further went to the Opposite Party No. 2 without depositing the said defective Mobile phone in issue to the Service Centre Opposite Party No. 3 and requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to change/replace the said defective Mobile hand set as because the said Mobile hand set was within the warranty period.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
The Complainant further stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 disagreed with this proposal of replacement and asked to hand over the said Mobile phone before the Service Centre. Thereafter, having no other alternative the Complainant had handed over the said Mobile phone in question to the Opposite Party No. 2 (the Seller) on 11.12.2016 for sending the same to the Service Centre Opposite Party No. 3 for necessary repairing which is evident from the documents (Lenovo Service Order) submitted by the Complainant.
The record reveals that on 21.12.2016, after getting the information from the Opposite Party No. 2 to take return the said Mobile hand set after due repairing works, the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 for taking the same but at the time of returning the said Mobile Phone in question, the said Mobile hand set could not be opened even the Opposite Party No. 2 also failed to open the same. In this situation the Opposite Party No. 2 again instructed the Complainant to go to the Opposite party No. 3 but this time the Complainant refused to repair the said Mobile and requested for replacement of the said Mobile Phone in issue but the opposite Parties refused to do the same.
Moreover, the fact remains that, the Complainant had no other alternative Mobile phone in his possession to use and being a professional the Complainant was in urgent necessity of a Mobile phone but the Opposite Party paid no heed to it after several requests made by the Complainant in this regard.
Now it is evident from the record that the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 stated that without any expert opinion how can the Complainant alleged the manufacturing defect in that said mobile Phone in issue. But it is palpably clear from the case record and from admission of this Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 that
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
the said mobile Phone in question was defective after 2 months from the date of purchasing which manifestly obvious to understand that the said mobile in issue was actually defective for 2 times within the warranty period for which there is no need for an expert opinion to prove that the said Mobile Phone in dispute is a defective one.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant proved without any expert opinion that the said Mobile phone in dispute was a defective one which stop functioning within 2 months from the date of its purchase, i.e. within its warranty period.
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that all the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 jointly and severally are directed to repair the said Mobile Phone in dispute in good condition without any charges, i.e. free of any charges within ’45 days from the date of receipt of the mobile phone.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against both the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/- only payable to the Complainant jointly and severally within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
That all the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 jointly and severally are directed to repair the said Mobile Phone in dispute in good condition without any charges, i.e. free of any charges within ’45 days from the date of receipt of the mobile phone.
That the Complainant is directed to hand over the said Mobile Phone in issue towards the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 within 10 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
That failed to repair the said Mobile Phone in dispute, all the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally shall refund the cost amount of Rs. 5,700/- only in total to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of failure to repair the said Mobile in issue.
That all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
