CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/81/2017

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Smt. Vandana Gupta

W/o Rakesh Kumar Gupta,

R/o 4/22, 2^nd Floor,

Western Extension Area,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.                                              …..COMPLAINANT   

 VERSUS

Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Head Office:

Block B, Sector 25, Badarpur,

New Delhi-110005.

Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.

Vatika Business Park,

1^st Floor, Badshah Pur Road,

Sec-49, Sohna Road,

Gurgaon-122001

Service Centre at:

Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Upper Ground Floor,

F-11, Janak Place,

District Centre, Janak Puri, Delhi.                                     …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President                                                                                        

                 Mr. R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Instant complaint has been filed by Smt. Vandana Gupta (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that on 15.13.2016 she purchased a mobile phone from OP1, which was manufactured by OP2, for Rs. 14,499/- with a warranty period of one year provided by OP2.  After a few months of taking the delivery of mobile phone, complainant observed various problems in the mobile phone such as non-functioning of camera, volume button of the instrument and vibration feature not working, battery draining very fast, very poor performance of camera as and when it worked, auto working of the phone, frequent hanging of the mobile phone and excess heating of the phone in a short time while in use.  She visited the service centre of OP2 at District Centre, Janak Puri on 21.02.2017.  She was asked to deposit the mobile phone for 4 days.  She handed over the same on 21.02.2017 and collected it after 4 days i.e. on 25.02.2017.  Within a few days of using the repaired phone, the complainant was shocked to note that the same defects occurred again in the mobile phone even after the repairs.  She again visited the service centre of OP2 in Janak Puri and requested for replacement of the mobile phone which was denied.  Complainant has stated that the phone had defects which cannot be rectified by OPs.  Therefore they are liable to replace the same or in the alternative refund purchase price with interest @ 18% per annum along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. OP2 contested the claim vide its written statement.  It is pleaded that as per terms of the warranty refund of the price is done only when the service provider determines that it is not repairable.  It is further pleaded that OP duly attended to complaint of the complainant and did necessary rectification and replacement by changing the vibration module and upgrading the software of the mobile phone free of cost.  It is also stated that complainant contacted service centre of OP only once on 21.02.2017 i.e. and that too after about a year from the date of purchase.  It is also stated that the complaint was lodged with issues relating to non-vibration, keypad/button and touchpad.  It is also stated that no issues relating to camera, battery draining, etc. were reported on the said date.  It is further stated that mobile phone was handed over to the complainant in working condition on 22.02.2017 and as per customer relationship managing data of OP, no complaint was lodged by complainant thereafter in respect of  the mobile phone in question.
3. Parties have filed evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard Ms. Vandana Gupta, complainant in person and Ms. Rachna Bahadur, counsel for OP2.
4. It is not in dispute that complainant did not complain to the OP regarding malfunctioning of the mobile phone in question till 21.02.2017.  She purchased the phone on 15.03.2016.  So the reasonable inference is that the mobile worked well for about a year. Complainant has placed on record Lenovo service sheet dated 21.02.2017 which ends with a note that the phone was handed over in working condition.
5. Complainant could not show us that she lodged any complaint with OP after receiving the repaired phone from OP on 24.02.2017.  Complainant submitted that as per practice of service centre of OP mobile is required to be handed over and the same is given back after 4-5 days.  Learned counsel for OP submitted that some time is definitely needed for diagnosing the problem/defects and repairing the same and therefore the mobile phone could not be handed over on the same day. Complainant submitted that she is a lawyer and she can not leave the mobile with the service centre of OP for 4-5 days and therefore she did not deposit it at the service centre again.  Complainant submitted that she wants refund of the purchase price as the mobile phone has irreplaceable defects.  Mobile phone is an electronic gadget and complainant is not competent to give an expert opinion that her mobile phone is not repairable.  No expert evidence is placed on record in this regard.  The fact that the mobile was working well and the first complaint regarding some defects in it was lodged after almost a year indicates that the mobile phone did not have any manufacturing defect.  It is also on record and not denied that it was repaired by OP free of cost during warranty period.  There is no evidence that complainant ever approached OP thereafter to bring to its notice any defects in the phone that persisted even after repairs carried out in February 2017.

Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of OP.  The complaint is thus dismissed.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this           Day of                       2019.