Haryana

Ambala

CC/270/2015

Yogesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenova Mobile Pvt ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :

                                                                                                      AMBALA

 

                     Complaint Case No.            :       270 OF 2015

                        Date of Institution              :       18-09-2015

                        Date of Decision                 :       29.08.2016

 

 

Yogesh Kumar son of Sh. Ram Avtar R/o H.No.567-D, Tara Nagar, Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

                                                                                                                     :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                       Versus

1.             Lenovo (India) Private Ltd, Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi village, Marathhalli Outer Ring Road, Marathhalli Post, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore 560037 Karnataka (India).

2.             Lenovo Service Center, near Football chowk, Opposite Local Bus stand, Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory.

3.             Base 39, Mobile Communication, behind S.D.Girls Hostel, Gian Marg, Ambala Cantt.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:            SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-           Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Harsh Vohra, Adv. counsel for OP No.1

                        OP No.2 ex-parte.

                        OP No.3 given up                        

               

O R D E R

 

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Mobile set model Lenovo A -6000 Black bearing IMEI No.867124025240813 and IMEI No.867124025240821   vide bill No.604 dated 8/12/2014 from OP No.3 in a sum of Rs.8,000/-with a warranty of 1 year but due to problems in the set, the same was replaced with IMEI No.867562027501676 & IMEI No. 867562027501684 by OP No.3 vide bill No. 27336 dated 7.7.2015. After one day, the said mobile phone started giving problems i.e. screen touch problem, phone hanging & charging problem etc. due to manufacturing defect. So, the complainant approached to OP No.3 where the OP No.3 advised the complainant to approach OP No2 i.e authorized service centre of OP company and thus complainant contacted the OP No.2 for the above said defects who after retaining the mobile set for some days returned the same with the assurance that we have rectified the problems of your mobile. After reaching at home, the mobile again started same problems. Thereafter complainant ran from pillar to post for getting the defects rectified in his mobile but all in vain despite many visits to the OPs for the same problems rather no reply or satisfactorily response from the OPs which is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

 

 

2.          Notice of complaint was duly served upon OPs through Regd. Post but OP No.2 did not bother to appear despite service and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21-3-2016 & OP No.3 was given up vide order dt. 26.4.2016, whereas OP no. 1  appeared through counsel and submitted reply urging therein that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question but the first call logged on 8-8-15 vide SRINO 311508080002 about eight months from the date of purchase, and again on 28-8-2015 vide SRINO 311508080007 to which OP no.2 dully attended the complainant on the both occasions, diagnosed and resolved the issue by replacing required part i.e. motherboard and upgrading the software & handed over the phone functioning properly to the satisfaction of the complainant. It has been further submitted that answering respondents has given his services and replaced the parts free of cost.  In the end, OP No. 1  prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

3.         To prove his contention, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-3  and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Mr. Romendro Singh as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexures R1 to Annexure R 3 and closed his evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

 

 

 

4.          We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties  and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased one Mobile set model Lenovo A -6000 Black bearing IMEI No.867124025240813 and IMEI No.867124025240821 from OP No.3 vide bill No. 604 dated 8.12.2014  in a sum of Rs.8000/- with 1 year  comprehensive warranty which became defective within one month of its purchase i.e. during the warranty period and  was replaced by OP No.3 vide bill No. 27336 dated 7/7/2015 but the replaced set also did not function properly to which OPs failed to rectify the defects or replace the Mobile set in question, which is admittedly a deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, OP’s counsel rebutted the contention of complainant by arguing that complaint was received  by OPs  which was duly attended and all the defects were rectified by OP No.2 in their service center and set was handed over to the complainant  as defect free mobile set and thus they are not deficient in providing services.

5.          After hearing the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the Mobile set in question is of the  OP  Company  which  was  sold  by  OP  No.3  to  the  complainant on 8-12-2014 and replaced on 7-7-2015. Further it is also not in dispute that the Mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and became defective twice during the warranty period. It is also not in dispute that the complainant made complaint to the OP No.2 which is authorized service centre of the OP company where they retained the mobile set in dispute for repair but defects could not be rectified. Further, to strengthen his case, the complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand, OPs contention that the complaint of the complainant made to the OPs was duly attended by OP No.2 and the defects in the mobile set were rectified free of cost being within warranty period, is not tenable since they have admitted in preliminary objection no.5 & 10 of written statement that in the month of August 2015, complainant visited the answering respondents service centre twice for problems of charging, hanging & camera etc. in the Mobile set but has not tendered affidavit of any Engineer/ Mechanic of their service centre at Ambala to the effect that they rectified the defects of the Mobile set in question. So, the version of OPs is self contradictory and is not believable.

 

 

                Accordingly in view of the facts discussed above,  we have come to the conclusion that the Mobile set sold to the complainant by OP No.3  was having inherent defect from its very beginning and was not rectified by the OPs  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre i.e. OP No.2. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Therefore, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

 

1. to return the cost of mobile set  i.e. Rs.8,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date.

 

        (ii)       to pay  Rs. 2000/- as  compensation  for  harassment and mental agony etc.

       (iii)        also to pay Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation.

 

Further the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                                                                       

Announced:29.08.2016                          Sd/-

                                                         ( A.K.SARDANA)                                                                     

                                                                PRESIDENT

                                           Sd/-

                            ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                              MEMBER