Delhi

East Delhi

CC/225/2016

VINEET SINHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LENOVE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 225/16

 

Shri Vineet Sinha

126, Karishma Apartments,

Plot No. 27, IP Extension,

Delhi- 110092

•  

Vs

1. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.

Ferns Icon, Level-2,

Doddenakund Village,

Marathhalli Outer Tingh Road,

Marathhalli Post, Kr Puram Hobli,

Bangalore- 560037

(Through its Managing Director)

 

2. Mr. Manpreet  Singh

Prop. Manpreet Telecom

A-159, Vikas Marg,

Shakarpur, Delhi- 110092

                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 06.05.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 11.12.2019

Judgment Passed on: 16.12.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Shri Vineet Sinha, the complainant with allegations of unfair trade practice against Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., (OP-1) and Manpreet Telecom, (OP-2).

Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant, a taxation lawyer approached OP-2, the authorized dealer of Lenovo mobiles to buy a 3G enabled smart phone for his personal use with the purpose to access high speed internet for checking emails and other data services. The complainant was convinced to purchase Lenovo A850, manufactured by OP-1, with the representation of the same being ultra modern mobile phone with latest technology and data supported through 3G enabled network. OP-2 represented Lenovo A850 to be very fast as it was supported by 1.3 GHz Quad Core Processer. The complainant has stated that he was offered lucrative discount, where he paid Rs. 11,500/- instead of Rs. 15,999/- being the MRP with the assurance of excellent after sale service. Being convinced by the representations made by OP-2, the complainant purchased Lenovo A850, with IMEI no. 863234025225872 and IMEI no. 863234025225880 on 11.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-.

The complainant has further stated that over a period of time he realized that despite of 3G recharge and services by the network provider the browsing speed of the handset was very slow due to which he was unable to brows emails.

The complainant visited OP-2 in December, 2014, with his grievance where he was asked to wait for 3 to 6 months. Again in the first week of May, 2015, the complainant visited OP-2, where he was again assured that the handset was one of the high-tech smart phones and 3G enabled and once the network would be upgraded the performance issue would be resolved. The complainant was given assurance every time he visited OP-2, ultimately in the month of January, 2016, the complainant was asked to follow up with his network provider. It was only after that the complainant contacted the customer care executive of his network provider i.e. Airtel, where he came to know that the handset was not compatible with 3G data services.

The complainant visited OP-2, where his request for refund/ replacement was rashly declined by OP-2, who had sold the same to the complainant proclaiming it to be 3G enabled. Service Centre of OP-1 also refused to entertain the complainant as there was no problem in the working of the handset.

It has been stated that OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by misrepresenting with respect to the features and performance while selling the said mobile phone on false promises. Feeling aggrieved he has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to discontinue unfair trade practice and to mention the compatible network bands on the mobile phone box, product information guide and warranty book; to provide a brand new ultra modern 3G enabled mobile phone or replacement/ refund; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, suffering and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has annexed copy of invoice dated 11.05.2014 as          Annexure C-1, exterior of mobile box as Annexure C-2, product information guide as Annexure C-3 and warranty book as Annexure C-4 with the complaint.   

Written Statement was filed by OP-1 upon service. They have taken plea that there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part as they were not aware of any assurance or promise made by dealer i.e. OP-2 at the time of sale of handset in dispute. The relation between OP-1 and OP-2 was on principle to principle basis. It was submitted that the complainant was supposed to contact the service centre in case of any complaint, the procedure for which was mentioned in the product brochure, which was not so in the instant case. It was further submitted that OP-1 was always willing to provide services as per warranty terms and conditions in case there was any problem in the handset.

They have also submitted that they were not bound by the assurances given by OP-2 at the time of sale. They have further submitted that phone purchased by the complainant was 3G enabled phone, but the complainant might have faced the problem with the network service, hence, the complaint was baseless and not maintainable. They have also denied rest of the contents of the complaint and have prayed for the dismissal of the same with cost.

They have annexed the warranty terms and conditions, specification of Lenovo A850 with their reply.

OP-2 have also filed their Written Statement, where they have stated that the complainant being well educated person was aware about the type of the product and non availability of 3G services in the handset. It was stated that the after sales services were to be provided by OP-1, which was clearly mentioned on the invoice. Thus, no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice could be alleged against them. They have also objected that Airtel, the service provider was also a necessary party for the adjudication of the present complaint. They have also denied the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its dismissal.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 was filed, where the contents of the Written Statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant where he has got examined himself. He has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has relied on invoice dated 11.05.2014, which has been exhibited as Ex. CW1/1; copy of the exterior of the mobile box as Ex. CW1/2; product information guide as Ex. CW1/3 and warranty booklet as Ex. CW1/4.

OP-1 have got examined Shri Shankara Narayanan Prakash, Techinical Manager at M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. He has also deposed on oath the contents of their Written Statement on oath and has relied on annexures with their Written Statement. They have also filed board resolution authorizing                Mr. Shankara Narayanan.

OP-2 did not file their evidence despite several opportunities and subsequently stopped appearing hence they were proceeded ex-parte.

We have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1. We have also perused the material placed on record. The complainant has averred that OP-2 had sold him a handset stating it to be 3G enabled, which was not so. Thus, he has leveled allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on OP-1, the manufacturer and OP-2, the dealer. The complainant has stated it to be a case of mis-selling, where the dealer, OP-2 had sold him a handset stating it to be 3G enabled. No specifications have been mentioned on the box from where the complainant could make out whether the handset was 3G enabled or 2G enabled. Thus, complainant had no opportunity to verify the representation made by OP-2 unless he had purchased the handset and opened the box. If we look at Ex CW1/1, the invoice which is dated 11.05.2014 and the date of institution of the present complaint is 06.05.2016, which is almost after 2 years of purchase. Admittedly the handset has been used by the complainant for all this period. It is highly improbable to accept that complainant being an educated person, as per his own allegations against OP-2, he had been once deceived by OP-2 continued to believe their assurances. Further, the complainant has not filed any correspondence/representation in respect of the non working of handset at 3G band

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint no unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of OP-1 and OP-2, hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits, without orders to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 File be consigned to record room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                          (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)     Member                                                               Member

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President