1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Lenovo Vibe K5 plus mobile set from OP.1 vide Invoice No.4607 dt.29.5.2016 for Rs.8000/- but after 6 months of its use, the SIM management of the handset did not work which is a technical problem. It is submitted that as per advice of OP.1, the complainant approach the nearest Lenovo Service Centre at Visakhapatnam (OP.2) but the said service centre denied to accept the handset due to non showing of IMEI number of the defective handset. It is further submitted that the complainant revealed the facts before OP.1 by returning from Vizag but the OP.1 stated that the IMEI number supplied by the Company has been mentioned in the retail invoice and if the IMEI number is not displayed, then he has no fault and the Company is liable for fault noticed in the set. Being harassed by the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.8000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.13, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. In spite of valid notice the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in this case in any manner. The complainant was also found absent on the date fixed for nearing. Hence the case was taken up for orders on merit basing upon the materials available on record.
3. In this case the complainant has filed copy of Retail Invoice Vide No.4607 dt.29.5.2016 for Rs.8000/- in support of purchase of alleged handset from OP.1. It is stated that after 6 months of its purchase the SIM Management of the handset did not work besides IMEI and Networking not being shown for which as per advice of OP.1 the complainant contacted OP.2 at Visakhapatnam. The OP.2 (ASC) denied receiving the handset for repair due to non-showing the IMEI number in the handset. On further approach to OP.1, it did not accept the liability stating that the IMEI number supplied by the Company has been recorded in the retail invoice and non-showing of IMEI number is the liability of the manufacturing Company of the handset.
4. It is a fact that the handset suffered defects during warranty period. Now-showing of IMEI number in the handset and other problems are technical defects to be removed by the ASC of the concerned Company. Further the OP.1 is to take steps to check and find out the IMEI number whether it was correct or not. The Customer Care Centre of the Company was to be contacted by the Ops but instead of helping the complainant in this matter, the Ops simply disowned their liabilities leaving the same on the Company. It is not understood as to how a poor customer being a layman could solve the technical problems appeared in the handset when after sale service during warranty period is the duty of the Ops.
5. In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding we lost opportunity to know anything from them. In the above circumstances, we feel that the handset sold to the complainant has some inherent manufacturing defect for which IMEI number was not appearing in the set besides other problems. In our opinion, the complainant should not suffer at the hands of the Ops after investing a huge amount towards purchase of handset and hence he is entitled to get back the cost of handset with interest from the date of filing of this case. Further due to such inaction of the Ops the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is also entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.
6. Hence ordered that the complainant petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.8000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.5.2017 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
