Prasanta Kumar Sahu, aged about 36 years, S/O-Late Harihar Sahu filed a consumer case on 01 Oct 2018 against Lenovo (Indai) Private Ltd. in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/62/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Oct 2018.
BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
CD Case No- 62 /2017.
Present- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.
Prasanta Kumar Sahu, aged about 36 years,
S/O-Late Harihar Sahu,
At/P.O-Kalla,P.S/Dist-Deogarh. ... Complainant
-Versus-
Ferns Icon,Level -2 Doddenakundi village,
Marathaballi Quter Road,
KR Puram,Hobil,Bangalore-560037.
(DTA Unit)Plot 3,Phase-II,SIPCOT,
Industrial Park,Sandavellur, ‘C’village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram,
A-43,Ground Floor, Mohan C-operative,
Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110044,Delhi, India.
Ground Floor, Main Road, Uditnagar, Odisha,
Rourkela-769012. … Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant : - Sri Alok Saourav Behera,Advocate.
For the Opp.Party-1 :- Mr. S.N. Prakash (Authorised Person)
For the Opp.Party-2 :- None
For the Opp.Party-3 :- None.
For the Opp.Party-4 :- Nemo
DATE OF HEARING: 30.08.2018, DATE OF ORDER: 01.10.2018.
Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) -Brief facts of the Case is that the Complainant has purchased a Lenovo Mobile handset in the name of one Lipu Pradhan as per the given address from Amazon.in with a payment of Rs.11,999/- having a warranty for one year from the date of purchase. When the user of the mobile handset found some defects in the same, he made contact with the Customer Care Centre and to get proper service visited the O.P-4.After inspection of the mobile handset and Entry Level Screening of the same, the O.P-1 inspected the mobile handset by trained engineer and an Entry Level Screening (ELS) was done and diagnosed to be damaged by liquid entry inside the phone. As the smart phone was identified as Customer Induced Damage (CID)/Physical damage, hence it is not covered under warranty scheme. So they informed the Complainant that the damage to the products by external factors is not associated with the manufacturing/inherent condition of product and he has to pay repairing charges against their service, if availed by him. But the Complainant remained silent over the matter and the said mobile handset was lying in the same condition in the possession of O.P-4 as it was initially.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION-
From the above discussion and materials available on record we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps because he has purchased a mobile handset from the O.P-3 who is the dealers working for the manufacturer O.P-2 who is associated with the Brand name Owner (Lenovo) O.P-1 and sought for post sale service from O.P-4, who is the authorized service centre. Again the O.P-1 & 4 have not filed any documentary evidence or Certificate from Trained Engineer in support of their claim that the mobile handset was mishandled by the Complainant/user which got the Liquid Damage/Customer Induced damage(CID).Also the O.P-1 & 4 has not submitted any ELS report along with their written statements. According to the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission reported in 3(2010) CPJ- 130 (NC) titled as "Sushila Automobiles Versus Dr. Birendra Narain and Others" - in case the manufacturing defect is not satisfactory proved then the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defects and / or replacement of the parts. Even admitting the version given by the opposite party that no specific expert report was proved by the complainant that the phone was having a manufacturing defect or not, even then it cannot be denied that the phone set was within the warranty period. So the demand of repairing charges by the O.P-4 is not genuine. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Apple India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tarun Kumar” decided on 11th July, 2017 by “State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab. In the fact and circumstances, the Opp. Parties No-1 & 4 have committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(1)(o) are liable to pay compensation as per the order as follows:-
ORDER
Petition is allowed. The O.P.2 &3 has no liability in this case. The Opp. Parties No-1 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to give a new Mobile Handset (same make & model) in exchange of the defective one to the Complainant and pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation expenses within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 1st day of October,2018 under my hand and seal of this Forum.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree, I agree,
MEMBER. PRESIDENT. MEMBER.(W)
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
MEMBER.(W)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.