DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 765/2016
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
AJAY BHARDWAJ,
S/o SH. MEWA LAL BHARDWAJ,
R/o H-442, MANGOLPURI,DELHI-110083.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. LENOVO AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTER,
No.156, AGGARWAL CITY PLAZA,
MANGALAM PLACE, SECTOR-3, NEAR M2K,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. LENOVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(CORPORATE OFFICE),
VATIKA BUSINESS PARK, 1st FLOOR,
TOWER-A, SEC.-49, NEAR OMEX MALL,
SOHNA ROAD, GURGAON-122018. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.07.2016
Date of decision:13.02.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the consumer protection act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model Lenovo K4 Note
CC No. 765/2016 Page 1 of 7
online from Amazon.com for a sum of Rs.12,099/- vide invoice no. KA-BLRG-144105041-10135498 dated 08.03.2016 whichwas dispatched at the complainant’s premises on 10.03.2016 from Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant further alleged that the complainant used the mobile handset for about 2 months then the issue of charging started appearing and the mobile handset could not charge from any kind of charger and the complainant gave the mobile handset to authorized service center i.e. OP-1. Thereafter, OP-1 told the complainant after analyzing that the mobile handset has some liquid issue so it cannot be repaired with in warrantee. The complainant further alleged that as per his knowledge there is not any water droplet on the mobile handset but the complainant gave mobile handset to OP-1and was handover the job sheet by OP-1 with amount showing Rs.1,200/- and OP-1 told the complainant to collect the mobile handset in a week but when the complainant reached to recover the said mobile handset OP-1 did not give the mobile handset as the same was not repaired on time and OP-1 gave another week to handover the mobile handset but again it was not repaired till the given time and after one month of wandering OPs called the complainant that there is an issue of PCB and mother board is not working properly which in turn will cost Rs.7,100/-. The complainant further alleged that the complainant gave them mobile handset when it was working and it switched off
CC No. 765/2016 Page 2 of 7
when whole of the battery got consumed then how can PCB get damaged and the complainant reached OP-1 and told them about the complaintand asked them after analyzing and charging diagnose charge how can OPs now tellthe complainant the other problem and the complainant asked what had OPs diagnosed before and if PCB was not working properly OPs how can OPs analyzed the charging issue and the complainant asked OPs to give the complainant another job sheet of amount Rs.7,100/- but after consulting with his senior he refused to give it to the complainant and the complainant asked if OPs give in writing that the mobile handset PCB problem and it will cost of Rs.7,100/- to repair and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to refund the invoice amount i.e. Rs.11,999/- being the price of mobile set as well as compensation of Rs.70,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.
3. Only OP-2 has been contesting the case and has filed reply/written statement wherein OP-2 submitted that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the case is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that the problem in the mobile handset was on account of faulty
CC No. 765/2016 Page 3 of 7
use and physical damage and not on account of any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and the same had occurred due to physical damage as there was liquid logged in the mobile handset of the complainant and the same cannot be attributed to any defect in manufacture and such defects are not covered under warrantee. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant was informed of his mobile handset being out of warrantee and that repairs could be carried on chargeable basis and in the instant complaint it was found that the liquid in the mobile handset was due to ‘CID’ issue i.e. ‘Customer Induced Damage’ and the same was duly communicated to the complainant and further submitted that physical damage was not covered under warrantee as the mobile handset was found to be liquid logged and the authorized service center provider of OP after diagnosis of the mobile handset had informed the complainant that the mobile handset PCB required replacement and that the same would be replaced on paid/chargeable basis and the said replacement of the PCB was carried on the very same day only after the necessary confirmation from the complainant and after the part replacement the mobile handset was ready for delivery on the same day and case was closed and the complainant was asked to collect the mobile handset. However, to utter surprise the complainant out rightly denied to pay for the said part replacement of the PCB and also
CC No. 765/2016 Page 4 of 7
refused to collect the mobile handset which was ready for delivery on the same day and OP has carried out the necessary part replacement of the PCB on the same day to address the grievances of the complainant.
4. The complainant filed rejoinderand denied the contentions of OP-2.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of invoice dated 08.03.2016 for purchase of mobile handset for a total value of Rs.12,099/- issued by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and copy of job sheet dated 26.05.2016 issued by OP-1.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Shankara Narayanan Prakash,Technical Manager-Smartphone Contact Center ofOP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence. OP-2 has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his mobile handset by using improper manner. Furthermore, at the first instant OP-1 did not state that the PCB of the mobile handset was damaged despite the
CC No. 765/2016 Page 5 of 7
fact that OP-1 has thoroughly examined the mobile handset. It shows that to extract more money from the complainant OPs have come out with the ground that PCB of the mobile handset has been damaged and required replacement. Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period. As OPs have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset and as such OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-2is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP-2isdirected as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,099/- being the price of mobile handset alongwith all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing whichOP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply with the order within
CC No. 765/2016 Page 6 of 7
30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 13th day of February, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
